Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Gilbert Islands (Independence)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether a date has been fixed for talks with the Gilbertese Ministers regarding their independence constitution.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): No, Sir.

Mr. Hooley: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to Gilbertese Ministers that the right of self-determination of the Banaban community cannot be ignored or set aside? Is he aware that the Banabans will fight just as fiercely for their political independence as they fought for their financial rights in the High Court of England? Is he further aware that such a fight will receive support from all sides of this House?

Mr. Luard: Questions of self-determination are always difficult. We believe that it is the Gilbertese as a whole who have the right to self-determination, and for the past 60 or 70 years Banaba has been considered as part of the Gilbert Islands. I shall certainly take account of the view that my hon. Friend put forward. We put forward what we believe is a reasonable compromise proposal, under which Banaba would enjoy autonomy within the Gilbert Islands.

Mr. Christopher Price: When the negotiations do come round, will my hon. Friend take steps to try to ensure that the situation that we were debating at 1 o'clock this morning relating to the Solomon Islands and dual citizenship—whereby half the population receive citizenship automatically and the other half have to apply—does not occur again?

Mr. Luard: As I told the House last night, we do not anticipate that problem arising again in this case or in any other.

Buenos Aires

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to pay an official visit to Buenos Aires.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands): My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Canavan: As the eyes of the world will be on Buenos Aires for the forthcoming World Cup Final, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to wish the Scottish football team every success?
Does he agree that the spectacle of the best sport in the world should not obscure the facts of one of the worst Fascist dictatorships in the world, under which many people are imprisoned, tortured and murdered? This occurs to such an extent that there are now about 15,000 people in Argentina who have little chance of liberty, never mind seeing the World Cup Final.

Mr. Rowlands: I certainly take the opportunity, on behalf of Welshmen and Englishmen, of supporting the Scots in their World Cup efforts. We wish them well.
Of course the problem of human rights in Argentina will not be obscured by the World Cup; in fact it could well be heightened by it. The action taken by EEC members, in which Britain took a full part, in a demarche to the Argentinian Government about disappearances and detentions, was an effective form of protest.

Mr. Dalyell: If Scottish fans get into difficulties in Argentina, what advice does the Foreign Office have for them?

Mr. Rowlands: We are today publishing in the Official Report the detailed advice that we are giving to every football fan who is travelling to Argentina. We have arranged special consular facilities in every town where matches are being played, as well as strengthening our own consular section in Buenos Aires. There is also quite a lot of detailed advice—we have done extremely detailed work in conjunction with the Scottish Football Association and the Scottish Office—to try to


ensure that Scottish fans do not get into too much trouble.

Banaba (Phosphate Mining)

Mr. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he anticipates that phosphate mining of Banaba will be completed and the operation of the British Phosphate Commission terminated.

Mr. Luard: It is expected that phosphate mining on Banaba will be complete in 1979 and that the British Phosphate Commission's operations on the island will be wound up in 1980.

Mr. Thompson: In view of the fact that the Banabans are determined to resettle their homeland and that this point of view was accepted by the Gilbertese Government in the recent Bairiki resolutions, what steps are being taken by participant Governments in the British Phosphate Commission to ensure that Ocean Island becomes a flourishing homeland for a thriving Banaban community and not simply a sterile monument to British financial greed?

Mr. Luard: The right of the Banabans to return to Ocean Island and resume their occupations has never been contested. The question of the replanting of the island was one of the subjects of the recent legal action on which an award was made. We have offered to undertake a resources survey to enable the Banabans to resume their occupations there.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Argentines have yet brought an end to their illicit establishment of a base on one of the islands within the Falkland Islands Dependencies; and, if not, when their departure will take place.

Mr. Rowlands: An Argentine statement on 11th May indicated that they had not done so. The Argentine scientific station is on British territory. We have protested about this and are pressing the matter.

Mr. Farr: Is it true that the Foreign Office was informed of the situation relating to the illegal occupancy 18 months ago? If that is so, why was instantaneous action not taken, such as

the physical removal of those concerned? Did the Minister ever consider suspending diplomatic relations?

Mr. Rowlands: The matter first came to light in December 1976. We protested forcefully and had reason to believe that the activities would be terminated. However, the activities were renewed in the present Antarctic season and, therefore, we have renewed our protest and are pressing the matter.

Mr. James Johnson: Does my hon. Friend take the view, as I do, that the word in the Question should be not "illicit" but "illegal"? If this were to happen again and nothing much further ensued, what measures would my hon. Friend be likely to take? We fear that, as in the old saying, an inch can become an ell.

Mr. Rowlands: We are pressing the matter. We hope to get the matter resolved through diplomatic exchanges between the two Governments. I believe that that is the best way of proceeding. It is premature to speculate on what further action is required if we fail in our present efforts.

Mr. Kershaw: Let us not get too excited about this. Is it not a fact that we have never used the island in any way? Are we not in the position of an absentee landlord who finds squatters on his premises?

Mr. Rowlands: It is a piece of British sovereign territory and that is why we treat the matter seriously. It is also true that the island is 1,200 miles south of the Falkland Islands and is totally uninhabited. The present activities on the island by the Argentinians are purely scientific.

Mr. Luce: Although economic co-operation between the Argentine and the Falkland Islands might make eminent sense, is it not serious that since 1976 an infringement of British sovereignty has taken place and that the Government have known about it since December 1976? Why has the Minister failed to tell us of this infringement of British sovereignty? What positive action is he taking to deal with it?

Mr. Rowlands: We have sought to resolve the issue through diplomatic exchanges between the two Governments.


That is infinitely preferable to public denunciations and public statements when we are trying to achieve a practical result to the problem that has arisen.

Mr. Farr: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply. I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Banaba (Aid)

Sir Bernard Braine: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response the Government are making to the Banaban Council of Leaders' acceptance of his ex gratia offer of $A10 million subject to its condition that the capital sum should be paid directly to it and be under its control and when the money will be paid.

Mr. Luard: We have proposed that the modalities of payment be discussed through legal channels, and the Banabans have welcomed the suggestion. No payment can in any case be made until it is confirmed unconditionally that there will be no appeal in the legal action against the Crown.

Sir B. Braine: That sounds suspiciously like blackmail to me. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government no longer intend to withhold from the Banabans the right to administer the fund themselves? Will he confirm that the accumulated interest on this sum will be paid over to them and will be under their control? Finally, as the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has said that the sum is not compensation for the grievous wrongs done to the Banabans over a long time, what response are the Government making to the High Court of Chancery's invitation, in December 1976, to make reparation for the continued breach of trust by the Government in terms of this small community?

Mr. Luard: On the question of the administration of the fund, we are taking note of the request that was made by the former Council of Elders. The new Council of Elders has recently been elected, with a completely different composition from the previous council. Therefore, we wish to explore its views before we reach a final decision. As for accumulated interest, I require notice of that question.
It is true that my right hon. Friend said that the offer was not intended as compensation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the legal action found there was no direct responsibility on the British Government. My right hon. Friend was making it clear that we have offered an ex gratia payment to take account of the difficulties and disturbances of the Banabans over previous years.

Mr. Skinner: To what extent is the company concerned with the exploitation and the ravages that took place on the island making its contribution to the so-called compensation?

Mr. Luard: The final distribution of the surplus of the British Phosphate Commission, to which I imagine my hon. Friend is referring, is still to be decided. We are only one among three Governments who are responsible. We have to discuss the matter with the other two Governments.

Mr. Luce: As there is widespread feeling that the Banabans have had a raw deal over a long period, will the Minister at least assure the House that the elected representatives of the Banabans will have a major share in the administration of the trust fund that is to be established?

Mr. Luard: It was because we recognised that many people felt that the Banabans had received a raw deal over some years that the offer—it was generally regarded as a generous offer—of $A10 million was made to the Banabans. Whatever some Opposition Members may think about it, the Banabans have recognised it as a generous offer and have accepted it in principle. As for the administration of the fund, there would be close consultation with elected representatives of the Banabans—in other words, the Council of Elders. As I have said, a new council has been elected and we shall want to know its views before we reach a final decision.

Miss Joan Lestor: Will my hon. Friend explain why it is that because the composition of the Council of Elders has changed there is an alteration to the principle concerning the administration of the fund, which was agreed by the British Government before the change was made? The statement made in another place is leading to a great deal of


suspicion and speculation among the Banabans.

Mr. Luard: I think that my hon. Friend is mistaken. The British Government have not agreed to the original proposal that the money should be administered directly by the Council of Elders. We have always said that that should be done by way of a trust fund. We have said that for a good reason. Many people believe that in the past funds have not been as well administered by the Council of Elders as they might have been. We want to ensure that the funds go genuinely to the purposes for which they are intended, namely, to help the people of Banaba as a whole.

Miss Fookes: Will the hon. Gentleman now make it abundantly clear whether the Banabans will control the capital sum, whatever form it takes?

Mr. Luard: We have proposed that a trust fund should be established, with which the representatives of the Banabans would be closely associated. We are now considering their proposal that the money should be paid direct to the Council of Elders.

Belize

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the negotiations with Guatemala on the territorial integrity of Belize.

Mr. Rowlands: Our policy is to bring Belize to early and secure independence as soon as possible. Any proposals for a settlement will be put to the Government and people of Belize.

Mr. Durant: In view of the resolution passed at the National Convention of the People's United Party on 16th April, which seeks independence but maintains that it wishes to keep its integrity and give no part of its nation away, what are the Government doing about establishing some form of defence force among the Belizians? Is the hon. Gentleman exploring the possibility of a defence pact among the Caribbean nations to defend the integrity of Belize?

Mr. Rowlands: We believe that the best way to bring Belize to early and secure independence is by negotiation. The concept of an international defence

force has been considered and is being discussed by many Commonwealth countries and in the Caribbean. We still believe that the real path to an early and secure independence for Belize is by negotiation with the Belizian Government.

Mr. Thorpe: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm the view expressed by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that there can be no independence without the wholehearted consent of the people and Government of Belize? Will he also confirm that it is their current view, which is unlikely to change, that the question of sovereignty over existing Belizian territory is not negotiable?

Mr. Rowlands: That is the view of Mr. Price's party, as declared in a resolution. We do not believe that we should slam doors on any possible negotiated settlement. We hope very soon to have a meeting with the Premier, Mr. Price, and other Belizian politicians to discuss the way forward.

Mr. Newens: In view of the sympathetic attitude that in the past has been adopted by the United States to Guatemalan claims, will my hon. Friend say what progress has been made in persuading the present United States Administration to give full backing to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in maintaining the demand for full territorial integrity on the part of the people of Belize? Has he drawn to the attention of the United States Administration the poor record that the Guatemalan Government have on human rights?

Mr. Rowlands: The United States Government have been extremely helpful and co-operative with us in endeavouring to get a negotiated settlement with the Guatemalan Government and have supported the principle of early and secure independence for Belize. That is an important and significant development in the historic position, which has been a positive force for a negotiable settlement.

Mr. Luce: It is to be hoped that a new understanding will be reached between Belize and the new Guatemalan regime which takes over shortly, but will the Minister make it absolutely plain—I think that he has not made it plain—that any proposition for the secession of any strip of land whatsoever will not be accepted


without the full consent of the people of Belize?

Mr. Rowlands: I repeat the assurance that I gave in my first answer to the Question. Any proposals that emerge from the negotiations will be put to the Government and people of Belize. It is for them to decide whether they wish to accept a particular course or negotiated settlement at which we arrive.

Diplomatic Service (Structure)

Mr. Grocott: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans any changes in the structure of the overseas representation of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects to complete consideration of the Central Policy Review Staff report on the Diplomatic Service.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): The Government are considering the structure of our representation overseas in the light of the CPRS review and the recent report by the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee. As my hon. Friend told my hon. Friend the Member for Woverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) on 11th May, the Government expect to present their conclusions to the House before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Grocott: I welcome that reply. Does my hon. Friend agree that Britain's overseas representation is more extensive and expensive than that of almost any other country of comparable size and that, indeed, it has hardly changed since Imperial times? Does he further agree that our status in international affairs will be measured not by the plumage or titles of our ambassadors but by the extent to which our foreign policy is consistent, is truly our own, and has a clear underlying morality?

Mr. Judd: I certainly agree that cost-effectiveness in our overseas representation is most important, but I should add that my first-hand experience is that in many parts of the world we have an unrivalled and outstanding service and quality of personnel at our disposal. My hon. Friend is right to underline the importance of the policy. In our age of

post-imperialism, foreign policy and its effective implementation for a nation such as ours become more, not less, important.

Mr. Roberts: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is some urgency in the implementation of the report on the background and training of the commercial departments of some of our overseas embassies? Is it not high time that we took some of our commercial work overseas out of the hands of the pinstripe brigade and put it in the hands of people who have some understanding of the problems of industry and business?

Mr. Judd: Our commercial work has to be second to nobody else's if Britain is to survive. In all seriousness, I wish that my hon. Friend had been with me last week in various parts of North America when I was meeting people involved in this work in the Foreign Service. Their professionalism and sense of commitment were outstanding.

Sir Anthony Royle: Is the Minister of State aware that his remarks to his hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) will be wholeheartedly supported by Opposition Members? Is he also aware that there is some concern that the Government are not taking steps early enough to consult our friends in the Community with a view to the possible setting up of a co-operative diplomatic venture in certain parts of the world?

Mr. Judd: On an ad hoc basis, where co-operation makes sense, we are prepared and ready to undertake it, but we are concerned that in multilateral institutions, no less than bilaterally, we are able to play a full and effective part. If we are to play a full and effective part in multilateral institutions, our direct overseas representation is most important, in order to ensure that we are well enough informed to do so.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to reject the CPRS policy on the British Council? Will he also make it clear that Britain's influence in Southern Africa would be very much heightened if military attaches were not photographed and seen to be grinning at South African military exercises which, in fact, took place only days before the recent invasion of Angola?

Mr. Judd: The function of all those working in diplomatic missions overseas


is to further the foreign policy enunciated by the Government of the day. On the point made by my hon. Friend about the British Council, I should simply say that when we have completed the intensive review of our overseas representation which we are now undertaking, our objective will be to make all our services more, not less, effective.

Mr. Walters: Bearing in mind the resounding vote of confidence in the Foreign Service given by the House of Commons Sub-Committee and the unsettling effect on the morale of the service after two years of critical investigation, will the Minister give an assurance that the service will now be left alone to plan its own future? Also, as the salaries of the senior members of the service have been allowed to get absurdly into arrears, will he tell us when the Boyle Report will be published and implemented?

Mr. Judd: On the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question, I repeat that for this Government the effective conduct of foreign policy has never been more important than it is today. Britain's survival depends upon it. In that context, I believe that we in this House owe it to those who are working on our behalf to make it clear that we want to support, not to undermine, what they are trying to do. What I find refreshing is their own desire at all times to examine the way in which the job is being undertaken and to see for themselves how it can be improved.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Bearing in mind the obvious dangers—by background and training, and many years spent abroad—of ambassadors and their staff being somewhat remote from contemporary British industrial and economic life, how many ambassadors spend any part of their time getting close to British industry when they are at home, in order to understand our problems and how to present the issues abroad?

Mr. Judd: I should not want to reject the point implicit in my hon. Friend's question, which is that it is important—

Mr. Davies: Very important.

Mr. Judd: —that our overseas representatives should be in touch with the character and nature of life and, indeed,

industry in Britain today. But I must tell my hon. Friend that my experience is that ambassadors, high commissioners and their staff are anxious, when on leave or when in Britain, to keep closely in touch with what is going on.

Mr. Hurd: Is the Minister aware that some of us find rather more realism about life in the Foreign Service than in the CPRS? Does he recall that the CPRS report stated that either BBC external services should be reduced or that the means of transmission should be strengthened? Will he confirm that the Government have rightly come down against reducing the services? What are they doing to strengthen or replace the necessary transmitters?

Mr. Judd: As I have said, we shall be making our policy clear before the Summer Recess. I assure the hon. Gentleman, as I said about the British Council, that our intention in all that we are now undertaking is to make our overseas representational tasks in the Foreign Service more, not less, effective.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Is not the verdict of business men engaged in export business overwhelmingly favourable to the work of the Diplomatic Service? Will my hon. Friend confirm a recent calculation—that the Diplomatic Service costs rather less than the Swansea driving licence centre?

Mr. Judd: I am sure that my right hon. Friend appreciates that I should need notice of the second part of his question.
On the first part, I endorse the point that he made, because in my job it has been my pleasure to read a great number of testimonies from business men and others which underline how effective they have found the support given by British representatives abroad to the work that those business men are trying to do.

Misha Voikhansky

Mr. Boscawen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will ask the Soviet authorities to review the case of Misha Voikhansky, in the light of the Helsinki Agreement.

Mr. Luard: The long separation of Misha Voikhansky from his mother gives


cause for concern, and Dr. Marina Voikhanskaya is aware that Ministers share the anxiety of a great many people in Britain about it. The Government have raised this case with the Soviet authorities on a number of occasions, in the context of the family reunification provisions of the Helsinki Final Act, and will continue to do so.

Mr. Boscawen: I am grateful that the Government have raised this case on a number of occasions. But will the Minister ensure that the Deputy Prime Minister of the Soviet Union, who is now in the United Kingdom, is made fully aware during the trade negotiations that thousands of people here regard cases such as those involving the separation of an 11-year-old boy from his mother, as a means of punishing the mother for speaking out courageously at the abuse of psychiatry in Soviet hospitals, as a detestable and barbarous act, which is against the meaning of the Helsinki agreement?

Mr. Luard: Most hon. Members will endorse that view. I shall try to ensure that the hon. Member's views and those of the House generally are made known to Mr. Kirillin, who is in this country.

Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that at this morning's meeting of the national executive committee of the Labour Party there was unanimous opposition to what has happened to Mr. Orlov and others like him? [HON. MEMBERS: "So what?"] If hon. Members would keep quiet they would realise that we are fighting against injustices in all parts of the world, including the Soviet Union. Is my hon. Friend aware that we feel that the Government could be a little more forthright on the question of those who are monitoring the Helsinki agreement in the Soviet Union?
We understand that the British Government do not want to endanger our relationships with the Soviet Union. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because we have to live with the Soviet Union. But it is vital that as a country and as a Labour movement we make our position absolutely clear, namely, that we are totally opposed to the methods adopted by the Soviet Union towards its dissidents.

Mr. Luard: I am pleased to hear what happened at the NEC this morning. I am

perplexed by the reaction of many Opposition Members. I am sure that the Soviet Government will regard this morning's decision as more representative of the views of the mass of the people than some other expressions of opinion.
I cannot accept what my hon. Friend said about the Government not being forthright about Mr. Orlov's case. The Prime Minister made the Government's views clear on 18th May. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary issued a statement on the same day expressing his concern at the harsh and unjustified treatment of Professor Orlov, which might make constructive relations between East and West more difficult.

Mr. Thorpe: Does the Minister agree that it is helpful at all levels to bring to the attention of the Soviet Union the disgust that we feel at the continuing breaches of the Helsinki agreement? Does he agree that it would be helpful if youth organisations, such as those of the National Council of Churches, Methodist churches and other organisations, which have accepted an invitation to go to the World Festival of Youth in Cuba in July, were allowed to carry out that intention?
Is the Minister aware that these organisations are facing difficulties because the £5,000 Foreign Office grant has been withdrawn simply because the Young Conservatives movement, having accepted the invitation, for reasons best known to itself has now declined it?

Mr. Luard: I agree that the more forcefully organisations and the House of Commons express their views on this matter the better it is and the more clearly the Soviet Government will be aware of the strength of feeling.
The right hon. Member is mistaken about the World Festival of Youth. The British Government give substantial assistance to the British Youth Council. That organisation is grateful for that help. We decided that we could not assist in sending a delegation to the Havana festival because that is not part of our function. We remain totally neutral on the question whether they attend that festival. It is up to them to spend their own funds if they wish to go.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend accept that on questions of human liberty and freedom of movement we cannot afford to be selective in any way? Does


he agree that those voices in the Opposition which are trying to make this issue an attack on the Soviet Union are not helping Mr. Orlov or Mr. Voikhansky? Does he further agree that wherever human liberties are at risk, whether in Chile or the Soviet Union, we should stand up in defence of them and not use them as a vehicle for partisan assaults on a particular regime?

Mr. Luard: I agree that there is a danger that legitimate and deeply felt concern might be depreciated because it is felt that it is expressed for party political purposes. For that reason I believe that the expression of opinion by the national executive committee of the Labour Party, which cannot be suspected, might have greater weight than the opinion of some other organisations.

Mr. John Davies: I was surprised to hear the Minister's comment when he referred to attitudes on the Opposition side of the House apparently not entirely conforming with our abhorrence of the abuse of human dignity wherever it takes place. That is not so, and it has been made abundantly clear on many occasions.
Does the Minister realise that at this time, with the accumulation of threats from the Soviet Union to the whole way of life that we favour, there is special anxiety about further abuse of the kind referred to in the Question?

Mr. Luard: I totally reject the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. I have made clear several times in the last few minutes that I was talking about the views of the whole House. I hope that they will be carefully noted by the Soviet Government.
We must continue to make clear our views and we must emphasise to the Soviet Government that actions of this kind are clearly in conflict with the terms of the Helsinki agreement, which specifically refers to family reunification. We shall emphasise that over and over again.

Cyprus

Mr. Norman Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement setting out his views in regard to the latest Turkish proposals for a settlement of the Cyprus issue, now that

the Secretary-General of the United Nations has made his views known.

Mr. Judd: The proposals, of which only a synopsis has been published, were presented to the United Nations Secretary-General, who has said that he will continue consultations about a resumption of the intercommunal negotiating process. As my right hon. Friend told the House on 26th April, he does not believe that as yet we are approaching an eventual Cyprus settlement. But we continue to urge the parties to come to the negotiating table.

Mr. Atkinson: Has not Mr. Ecevit said that there can be no progress until the Turkish Government have been assured about the supply of American military equipment and about the whole question of international credit being made available to Turkey? Neither side in the intercommunal talks is competent to discuss those matters with the Turkish Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now time for an initiative to be taken for direct consultation about the way in which the Turkish Prime Minister can overcome the impasse and thereby start proceedings for a phased withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus and so bring an end to the process of annexation which is Turkish policy at present?

Mr. Judd: I assure my hon. Friend that we take every opportunity to put before the Turkish and Greek Cypriot Governments the need for a constructive approach to negotiations. This was last done when the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Ecevit, was in London on 15th May. As things stand, the matter is in the hands of the United Nations Secretary-General. The most constructive thing that we can do at this stage is not to complicate his task but to support him in every way possible.

Mr. Rhodes James: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has repeatedly emphasised that the United Nations force in Cyprus cannot be regarded as permanent and that there are increasing pressures from member countries to end the force, the sole purpose of which is to prolong negotiations and to avoid reaching a settlement?

Mr. Judd: During my recent visit to North America I had talks with both the


United Nations Secretariat and Mr. Jamieson, in Canada, about the problems. It is right to recognise that the force cannot be regarded as permanent. It is important to recognise the cost to participating countries of sustaining it. But we should pay tribute to what it has achieved in keeping the peace in that troubled island. As far as we are concerned this is a means only of holding the situation. It cannot provide a solution. That can be found only by the people of Cyprus and their leaders.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Turkish proposals, as they have been published, by proposing a concession involving only 1 per cent. of Turkish territory, do not form a prima facie basis for successful negotiations? Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is not part of the British Government's policy to include the Eastern Sovereign Base in Cyprus as part of a settlement to increase that 1 per cent. to a greater proportion? Does he agree that we now need a wider international approach in order to solve this problem?

Mr. Judd: Candidly, I do not believe that the international community, acting on behalf of the people of Cyprus, can impose a solution. A lasting and viable solution can be found only with the commitment of all the people of Cyprus. It is therefore towards the objective of getting them to negotiate seriously together that we, with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, must direct our attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Political Co-operation

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the development of political co-operation in the Council of Ministers and amongst the permanent representatives.

Mr. Judd: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Members for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) and Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) on 22nd March.

Mr. Forman: Is the Minister aware that the United States Administration now seems rather chary about giving the sort of competent political leadership that the West so badly needs? Will the

Government therefore take the opportunity of the prospect of enlargement of the EEC to work in every possible way for a stronger European voice in world affairs, whether through the strengthening of the permanent representatives or perhaps through the introduction of a special political secretariat and, most important of all, through a diminution of the rather arbitrary distinction between EEC meetings and so-called political co-operation meetings?

Mr. Judd: I do not agree with the hon. Member in his assessment of the United States Administration. I believe that that Administration are giving outstanding leadership in many crucial areas in world affairs. But in the Community, where we can constructively work together and bring our united voice to bear in the cause of world stability, peace and economic stability in international affairs, we are determined to do so. I can assure the hon. Member that the methods that are operating at the moment are proving completely satisfactory. In political co-operation, however, they are voluntary and, therefore, they are different from the other main activities of the EEC which are of a legal character.

Mr. Roper: Does my hon. Friend think that political co-operation can be extended to non-members of the Community or non-applicants, or does he feel that it would be better to have discussions with them within the framework of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe?

Mr. Judd: I am grateful for that question. Obviously, the practice of increasing the close communication and co-operation, where results can be achieved in a political sphere, is an important part of the life of the Community. But this must not be at the expense of effective collaboration with those outside the Community. Therefore, it is most important that we seek a means of continuing to make still more effective our relationship with other Western European countries which are not members of the Community. I think that the Council of Europe has an important contribution to make in that respect.

Mr. Blaker: Do not recent events in Zaire confirm in dramatic fashion the imperative need for the Community to


work out a concerted foreign policy towards the various problems of Africa?

Mr. Judd: One of the areas of policy in which political co-operation is working most successfully is that concerning the continent of Africa. There is a great deal of evaluation and discussion between us on that matter.

Mr. Hooley: What steps are being taken by the Government to make sure that these discussions are held more openly so that the people of the United Kingdom may know what is being said and what commitments are being entered into in their name?

Mr. Judd: I can assure my hon. Friend that one of the things that preoccupies the Government about the life of the Community is the need for more open government about what the Community is undertaking. It is not for want of effort on our part that we have not made more progress in this respect. We have to get collective support for any changes. We do not yet have that kind of undertaking from other members of the Community, but we intend to persevere.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: In view of the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), will the Government emulate the steps taken by our partners in Europe, particularly France and Germany, by sending British troops to protect the interests of British citizens, including schoolchildren, in Zambia? Is the Minister aware that almost the entire Zambian army is located on the Rhodesian frontier and that if the rebels passed through Zambia that could create havoc if British Army personnel were not present?

Mr. Judd: As the hon. Member will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with these matters at Question Time yesterday.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my hon. Friend reject not only the anti-Russian expressions from the Conservative Party but the anti-American sentiments that it has been expressing recently? Will he seek to ensure that political co-operation in Europe will be conveyed to the United Nations disarmament conference so that the Russians, the Americans and Europe can agree to reduce the massive waste in the arms race?

Mr. Judd: I agree that on the general posture in foreign policy the starting point for all that is relevant and realistic is the recognition of the strategic and economic interdependence of the world community, and the need not to indulge in xenophobic nationalism but to work effectively and positively on an international basis. A number of European countries are making a most important contribution to the Special Session on Disarmament. I am glad to say that we are adopting a high profile in that conference.

Mr. John Davies: Does not the weakness lie in the very answer that the Minister of State gave—that the Community is only a voice and that collaborative activity is to be seen and heard only in terms of exhortation? Is not the time coming when the European Community must match its enormous international economic impact with a much greater and more positive political position? Has not that become abundantly clear in the last week or 10 days, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) said?

Mr. Judd: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in underlining that anything that we can do in this respect is on a basis of voluntary co-operation. The political role of the Community is not, as is the economic role, defined in the Treaty of Rome. But it is wrong to suggest that the Community's influence lies only in exhortation and that there is no effective action. For example, take the code of conduct which applies to South Africa. That is a practical policy that has been worked out. Take the Community's role in the CSCE. There is no doubt that by working together the Nine made an important contribution to the stand of the West as a whole.

Council of Ministers

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he proposes to put on the agenda of the next EEC Council of Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the principal subjects he expects to discuss at the next meeting of Foreign Ministers of the European Community.

Mr. Judd: The usual written forecast of Council business was deposited on 23rd May and I except to make an oral statement tomorrow.

Mr. Hicks: Will the Minister of State raise with his European colleagues the subject of the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy? Will he emphasise to them that on this occasion Britain is not being difficult but that the House and the nation are anxious to see the establishment of a viable and effective United Kingdom fishery industry? Will he explain to them that this means obtaining an exclusive 12-mile zone for coastal States and national control of the fishing effort up to 50 miles?

Mr. Judd: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no one who participates in meetings of the Council of Ministers is unaware of the strength of feeling on this issue in all parts of the House. Ministers frequently represent this as graphically as possible to their colleagues. As I and my right hon. Friends have said more than once, we are determined that in any common fisheries policy that emerges the special needs of the British fishing industry shall be recognised. These needs cover items such as conservation, preference within a 50-mile zone, the need for recognition of our losses in distant waters and the fact that we contribute more than 60 per cent. of the fish stocks to what is known as the common fish pool.

Mr. Noble: When my hon. Friend meets the other Foreign Ministers, will he take up with them the way in which the Commission has reneged on the Multi-Fibre Arrangement and the way in which it proposes to allow additional low-cost imports from Portugal? Will he take up this point from the aspect that this matter is being carried through unconstitutionally and say that if these imports are not prevented the already shaky faith still held by a small minority of my constituents and other textile workers in the Common Market will disappear completely?

Mr. Judd: The Government are well aware of the human problems in many parts of the country associated with the textile industry. When the Council of Ministers works out the stand to be taken on multifibres or any other issue, we expect the Commission to fulfil the terms of its mandate and not to depart from it.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will the Minister ensure that Africa is on the next agenda of the Council of Ministers so that African interests may be defended? We have just experienced a situation in which a so-called rebel force has driven Europeans out and succeeded in wrecking an African economy, at any rate temporarily. May it be clearly understood that Europe will clearly ensure that African interests are preserved by protecting European safety in Africa against anybody who attempts to attack it?

Mr. Judd: It is right to argue that the more effective we can become in working together with our friends and neighbours in protecting our legitimate interests and the well-being of our people, the better this will be. But I repeat that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with this matter fully at Question Time yesterday.

Mr. Watkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that anybody who has been to Portugal recently will know that that fragile democracy is facing acute problems? Will he raise this matter with the Foreign Ministers and try to ensure that every possible assistance is given to that country, even if it means assisting its inhabitants on textiles?

Mr. Judd: I believe that in all parts of the House there is a deep commitment to preserving democracy and stability in Portugal. It is no good simply talking about the matter. If we are to achieve that aim, it is important to match our words with economic support. That in no way alters the fact that, after careful and detailed deliberation in the Council of Ministers, when a mandate is agreed for particular negotiations we expect the Commission to abide by its terms.

Mr. Hurd: Do not recent events in several parts of the world, not only Africa, show that the Community now takes decisions on trade and finance which are of great political importance for Turkey, Portugal and Australasia but that it has not yet learnt how to use that economic strength to promote the broader interests of the West as a whole? Is not a concerted European policy in all areas of stress a matter not for the luxury of a leisurely debate but of urgent and absolute need?

Mr. Judd: If we can tackle political questions effectively in our mutual interests within the context of the political co-operation of the Nine, we must learn to do so, and we will want to do so. But we must not forget that the Treaty of Rome does not apply any disciplines or legal ramifications in this respect. Therefore, all that we can achieve has to be achieved on the basis of voluntary co-operation. The Government are determined to work at the problem.

Enlargement

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest state of the EEC negotiations on the admission of Greece, Spain and Portugal as full members.

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he remains satisfied with the progress being made towards the enlargement of the EEC.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on enlargement of the Common Market.

Mr. Judd: Negotiations with Greece are continuing. The Community still hopes that these can be substantially completed by the end of this year. The Council is expected to have a first discussion of the Commission's opinion on Portugal in June. The opinion on Spain is expected at the end of this year or the beginning of next.
The Government's view continues to be that, as well as maintaining the momentum in the negotiations with Greece, the Community should make more rapid progress in its preparations for negotiations with Portugal and Spain.

Mr. Hoyle: In those negotiations will my hon. Friend press the case of the British textile and footwear workers in order to ensure that low-cost imports do not flood into the country by the admission of these members to the EEC?

Mr. Judd: We recognise the problems that exist for many people in this country, and we shall be looking to their interests in negotiations about enlargement or anything else.

Mr. Arnold: What view has the Minister now formed about the necessary transitional period for Greece?

Mr. Judd: We have not yet reached the stage of reaching a transitional period. This will come at a later stage in the negotiations. But whether we are talking about Greece, Portugal or Spain, we do not feel bound by any particular pattern established in the past. We believe that it is important to find the solution that makes sense in the context of the country concerned.

Mr. Marten: Will the Government make the opening of the Gibraltar-Spanish frontier a precondition to the opening of negotiations with Spain? Is he aware that the people of Gibraltar have suffered long enough from this Spanish stupidity? If the Spaniards are to negotiate to come into the Community, they should show a bit of good will right now.

Mr. Judd: I have made plain to the House on previous occasions that we do not attach this as a precondition for our support of Spanish membership. What we find inconceivable is that once Spain became a member of the Community she would continue to behave towards Gibraltar in the way that she has behaved so far.

Mr. Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the strong words of support that he has given to the enlargement of the Community by the addition of these three countries? Is he further aware that we regard this process as a strengthening of democracy in those countries and as an important contribution by the richer countries of Northern Europe in seeking to end what will otherwise become a North-South conflict between the poorer and the richer countries?

Mr. Judd: I am grateful for that question. The position of Her Majesty's Government, and, indeed, the position of every Government in the Community, is that we have a heavy responsibility to support the cause of democracy in the three applicant States and that enlargement will be an important way of achieving this end.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does the Minister realise that the cause of democracy in Great Britain is not advanced by avoidable unemployment? Will he ensure that the other Ministers in the Council of Ministers are supplied with a copy of the report issued by the Trade and Industry Committee on the subject of fisheries? Will he see to it that we do not make any sacrifices of our interests in the textile industry when admitting further countries to the EEC? Lastly, does he believe that admitting Greece to the Community without Turkey will make the situation in Cyprus better rather than worse?

Mr. Judd: There are a number of points to answer in that supplementary question. Greece is an applicant for membership of the Community; Turkey is not. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is not reflecting the reality of the situation.
On the point related to the social implications for Britain and industries that find themselves in difficulty, I assure the hon. Gentleman that all Ministers with responsibility in these areas are determined to leave the Community partners in no doubt about what needs to be done.
As for the general importance of economic affairs, I emphasise that it is because of British insistence, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that in the next meeting of the European Council the need for the right economic policies for growth and for battling effectively against unemployment is at the top of the agenda.

Community Institutions

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many different European Community institutions he has visited since assuming his present office.

Mr. Judd: During the British Presidency in 1977 my right hon. Friend visited the European Assembly. He regularly takes part in meetings of the Council of Ministers and is in frequent contact with members of the Commission.

Mr. Madel: In view of the commercial contribution which this country is now making to the EEC, does the Minister feel that it is now time for the Government to press for at least one institution of the EEC to be based in

London? If he agrees with that suggestion, which institution would he advocate?

Mr. Judd: I do not know about London, but we have secured JET for Culham. That is a significant development.

Mr. Loyden: When my hon. Friend has the opportunity to meet members of the Commission, will he raise the question of the bad effects which hidden subsidies have on industry in Europe and unemployment in this country? Many people who have submitted contracts for shipbuilding and ship repairing are being undercut by European countries. Does this not mean that those European countries are receiving heavy subsidies from their Governments?

Mr. Judd: The sensible way for the Community to tackle these problems of industry under stress and associated unemployment matters is to work out rational solutions to maximise the opportunities in employment, not only in the short term but in the long term, in all member countries.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied, from his contacts with the Council of Ministers, that it is an effective instrument for safeguarding the interests of the EEC nations on a world scale? Is he satisfied that in Africa, in the Middle East and in defence matters the Council of Ministers of the EEC has genuinely done a job that required to be done to safeguard the security and the interests of our various nationals outside the EEC territories?

Mr. Judd: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his particular knowledge of foreign affairs, will understand that there are different multilateral institutions with different priority tasks. For world security there is the United Nations, and for more immediate defence we are deeply committed to NATO. The purpose of the European Economic Community was originally economic and social collaboration, but on this has been built the aim of political co-operation. We argue that the development of voluntary political co-operation within the Community is of the highest priority for us, but we cannot change history. The Treaty of Rome places no obligations on our fellow members in this


respect. We have to win them into voluntary co-operation.

TEN-MINUTE BILL

Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can help me in relation to the Ten-Minute Bill on televising the proceedings of the House, which I was to seek leave to introduce at this time. I understand that in accordance with normal custom the debate on the motion for the Adjournment of the House for the Spring Recess should take precedence. I also understand that that debate might go on until 7 o'clock, when the Government business down from 7 o'clock until 10 o'clock will take precedence. If that is so, the motion on my Ten-Minute Bill, that I have had down for some weeks now, will lapse, and the debate on it will not take place.
I should like to raise two points with you, Mr. Speaker. First, can you protect the interests of hon. Members who put in for a Ten-Minute Bill on any subject to enable them to receive their normal and accustomed rights—namely, to have their Bills debated briefly at or about 3.30 p.m., or at any rate after the end of Question Time?
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I should like you to say whether you agree that it is probably the wish of most hon. Members present that we should bring an up-to-date process of thought on television—

Mr. Fairbairn: Rubbish.

Mr. Farr: I believe that most hon. Members present would like to see cameras come into the Chamber.

Mr. English: We have not got used to radio yet.

Mr. Farr: I believe that it is right that we should have an opportunity of expressing our up-to-date opinion, as is laid down on the Order Paper by virtue of the Ten-Minute Bill, leave to introduce which I want to move in a few minutes.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the point of order. I call the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) further to that point of order.

Mr. Rathbone: May I add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has said, Mr. Speaker, that not only is it of great importance to many Back Benchers but it is of critical importance to many people in the country that the Bill be debated at this time?

Mr. Speaker: We are beginning to have expressions of opinion. I believe that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) was a little optimistic in some of his observations. If he is not, the debate on the motion for the Spring Recess Adjournment will collapse quickly and his Bill will be discussed; if the debate on that motion does not last until 7 o'clock, his Bill will duly be discussed.
My sole responsibility is to guard the rules of the House in this matter. The order of business is plainly laid down in "Erskine May". If the hon. Gentleman succeeds in reaching his Ten-Minute Bill before 7 o'clock, and finishes it before 7 o'clock, there will be an opportunity for the House to express an opinion. Otherwise, the hon. Gentleman will have to cast his bread upon the waters another day.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Crouch: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am very disturbed to hear your ruling, quoting "Erskine May" in this matter. Notwithstanding what may be said by "Erskine May", there is an understanding in the House that we can expect to debate a Ten-Minute Bill. That is one of the special privileges of Back Benchers, which are daily being eroded. My feeling is that the privileges of Back Benchers, which are so few, have been considerably eroded by this decision, albeit backed by the great wisdom of "Erskine May" which I do not think is law.
This afternoon we have seen a Back Bencher's attempt to bring to the attention of the House and the public a matter which is, whether they like it or not, of great importance. It is of great importance that the proceedings of the House should be communicated by means of television. The attempt is to be denied and put into a backwater. I am very sorry about this ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. English: You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that I had given you notice of an intention—

Mr. Skinner: This is "Erskine May".

Mr. English: If that is an accusation that I am illegitimate, I can assure my hon. Friend that I am not.
I had given notice of my intention to oppose the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), because no Bill is necessary to televise the House, and it is rather an abuse to propose a Bill.
If the hon. Gentleman is able to move his motion less than 10 minutes before 7 o'clock, will there be an opportunity for opposition under the Ten-Minute Rule?

Mr. Speaker: I can answer that at once. If the hon. Member for Harborough spoke for less than five minutes and the House wished to move to a decision, it would have the opportunity so to do. That is dependent upon the debate on the motion concerning the Adjournment finishing in a short while.

Mr. Whitehead: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that within the past decade the House clearly voted that Ten-Minute Bills should be taken at 3.30 p.m. and not at 10 p.m. The present arrangement, although certainly following the precedents of "Erskine May", appears to many of us to go against the spirit, though of course not the letter, of the arrangements of the House.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, would it be possible for you to raise with those who arrange the business of the House whether this sort of thing can be avoided by phasing a Ten-Minute Bill away from the day upon which the debate upon the motion for the Adjournment for the Recess is taken, so that the Bill may be raised again at 3.30 p.m., which was always the intention of the House?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall listen to all these points of order and answer them collectively.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the complaint of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), which I think is well justified, is not against the rules of the House but against the Prime Minister's action. It was open to the Prime Minister to put down his motion

as a debatable motion for the first Order of the Day. It is not because of the rules of the House but because the Prime Minister has elected to put down his motion in such a way as to cut out my hon. Friend that the House is deprived of its Private Members' rights.
As the Prime Minister has not thought it right to be present, Mr. Speaker, would you feel able to ask the Leader of the House, as the senior Government Minister who has the right to alter the Government's Orders of the Day, to withdraw from the "Notices of Motions" under the heading
At the Commencement of Public Business",
and substitute as the first Order of the Day his motion, which would then be taken immediately after my hon. Friend's Ten-Minute Bill? The motion would then be dealt with in such a way that it was bound to come to a resolution, without depriving a Back Bencher of his Ten-Minute Bill rights.

Mr. Fairbairn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. After the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) I am almost inclined to say "Well done, Prime Minister"—if I ever thought that the right hon. Gentleman did well. Should not the House be grateful that, as a result of this procedure, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has enabled us to register our views on this despicable matter without the nausea of the debate?

Mr. Fernyhough: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you reply to the several points of order that have been raised, will you bear in mind that I have always claimed to have the most articulate constituency in the country and that so far I can say without hesitation that I have not had a single letter asking for the proceedings of this House to be broadcast or televised? May I express the hope that the feelings of my constituents in Jarrow will be borne in mind when you reply to the various points that have been raised?

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is obviously great interest in the subject with which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) seeks to deal in his Ten-Minute Bill, particularly since the proceedings of the House are now


broadcast. There is a good deal of interest outside about televising our proceedings. May I put it to the Leader of the House, who is in his place, that it would be perfectly possible for him to put today's business on tomorrow and allow the Ten-Minute Bill to come forward today? Alternatively, the right hon. Member could arrange a debate at another time, soon after we return, so that we can have a vote on the issue of televising our proceedings.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we have had rather more than ten minutes' debate may we now proceed to a vote?

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I have listened with great care to every observation that has been made. There is nothing that I can add to what I said earlier. I am bound by the Orders of the Day.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Crouch: On a fresh point of order. Mr. Speaker. The Order Paper today states that Questions marked in a certain way, referring to EEC matters, will start not later than 3.10 p.m. I had tabled Question No. 18 which was not marked in any fashion but which was pertinent to EEC matters since it referred to a member of the European Community. I was surprised that this Question was put in the first part and not in that area dealing with EEC matters to be dealt with at 3.10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, who has been in the House for a long time, knows that I do not arrange the order of the Questions. His point of view will have been noted.

Mr. Fell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that approximately one-third of the Questions for answer by the Foreign Office today were about Africa, dealing with one part or another of that continent. Not one such Question dealing with the African scene was reached. It must have been obvious to anyone that, certainly since a few days ago, the most burning questions affecting foreign affairs would relate to Africa. It is unfortunate that things should have turned out this way. Is there any way in which you can use your influence to ensure that there is a better arrangement of Questions?

Mr. Speaker: I tell the hon. Member and the House that these days—we might as well face the facts of life—I get far more hon. Members from both sides of the House wanting to ask supplementary questions. Whenever I move on to a fresh Question, I am conscious of looks of disappointment from both sides. That has slowed down our progress. That is why we do not reach these Questions.

Mr. Fell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely it is possible, in the arrangement of these matters, to ensure that on an occasion such as to-day higher priority is given to Questions of the type that I have referred to. I know the difficulty. Nevertheless, the situation has been known for some days. We have a situation today in which no Question dealing with the continent of Africa has been reached. This is a serious matter.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings. There were supplementary questions addressed to the subject. It would be a dangerous business to start tinkering with the order of Questions on the Order Paper.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to rise a second time on a point of order but this issue arises out of what you replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). I would greatly appreciate your clarification. Is it for the hon. Member handing in a Question to specify whether it should appear as one of those Questions marked with a section mark to indicate that it relates to EEC matters? Is that a task for the Table Office, which comes under you, or is that something for the Department concerned to decide? It is because I do not know that I seek guidance from you, since I interpreted, or misinterpreted, your reply to my hon. Friend as meaning that he should have specified that his Question should have been in the EEC grouping.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The situation is that hon. Members address their Questions to the Department concerned and it is the Department concerned, in this case the Foreign Office, which would decide which Questions are put into the EEC section and which are put into the first section.

Mr. Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be far more sensible, since the EEC is clearly a foreign organisation, to have Questions concerning the EEC under the heading of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the same way as the other Questions, so that hon. Members cannot jump the gun with EEC matters but must take their place along with the other Questions?

Mr. Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman—it is a matter of indifference to me—that there is great pressure in the House for there to be a Question Time devoted to EEC matters. If the House wishes to change its mind I have no doubt but that the Leader of the House would be amenable.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to prolong this interlude, but on Monday I had Question No. 33 to the Secretary of State for Industry. When I received my Answer, which I did not receive from the Floor of the House, I found that I was referred to the Answer which the right hon. Gentleman had given to Question No. 1. I could not understand why I had not been grouped with Question No. 1 at the time since I was in the Chamber. Do you think that that point and the others that we have discussed are matters for the Select Committee on Procedure?

Mr. Speaker: These points have been heard by the Leader of the House. I hope that that sort of matter can be looked into.

Mr. Newens: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer to

the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)? Is it not recognised that, while we should give adequate time to dealing with EEC Questions, there is now inadequate time available for Questions concerning the rest of the world? While it might be felt that some consideration should be given to ensuring that there is an adequate period of time available for EEC Questions, should not some further consideration be given to providing more time to raise other foreign affairs matters?

Mr. Speaker: The point of view of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) has been heard and will be registered. It could only mean that there would be less time for some other subject in which other hon. Members have particular interests in questioning Ministers. May we continue?

BILL PRESENTED

COMPENSATION FOR LOCAL MALADMINISTRATION

Mr. Fred Silvester, supported by Mr. Tony Durant, Mr. Tom Arnold, and Mr. Ivan Lawrence, presented a Bill to require in certain circumstances the enforcement of compensation recommended by the Commission for Local Administration and to enable legal aid to be given in respect of any referral to a court to determine an appropriate level of compensation: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14th July and to be printed [Bill 139].

ADJOURNMENT (SPRING)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Friday do adjourn till Tuesday 6th June.—[Mr. Foot.]

3.51 p.m.

Mr. John Stokes: I am delighted that I have been called, Mr. Speaker, because we have already had a considerable discussion about the televising of the proceedings of the House, which I would regard as utterly disastrous. It is my considered view—and I had these thoughts before today—that this House should not adjourn until we have debated and re-considered the whole question of the effect of sound broadcasting on our proceedings here.
This is a matter which affects every hon. Member in this House. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that I have always been strongly opposed to our proceedings being broadcast, and I am bound to say, in all honesty, that recent experience only confirms me in the original view that I held. Indeed, I can go further and say that, as far as I can see, the only good thing which has come out of the proceedings of Parliament being broadcast is the striking success of broadcasts from the other place. The measured tone of their Lordships, the clarity and the intelligence of their speeches, and the absence of the awful background noise which obtains here make listening to their Lordships quite a delight. In castigating the procedure here, I expressly omit any criticism of broadcasting of the other place.
My main objection to broadcasting our proceedings here, Mr. Speaker, was that I thought it would ruin the atmosphere of debate among ourselves in this Chamber and would quickly transform this ancient and honourable House into what I may call a mere branch of show business. This is exactly what is happening.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is doing now.

Mr. Stokes: The over-emphasis on Prime Minister's Questions has resulted, I believe, in one-third more Questions being tabled, so that I fear that those of our colleagues who want to show off

can do so all the more. Prime Minister's Questions are not, I believe, by any means a vital part of our proceedings here, and they are rapidly degenerating into a farce. Yesterday, I suggest, was a particularly bad example.
We know that the news media love excitement, conflict, trivialities and personalities, and that is what the broadcasting of our proceedings, particularly of Prime Minister's Questions, is leading our affairs into.
This Chamber—which, after all, is the greatest debating Chamber in the world—is becoming a talking shop of the worst order—without, unfortunately, a Charles Dickens in the Press Gallery to chastise hon. Members as he did in the last century. There is, I believe, a total lack of dignity now. Noises off and catcalls are louder than ever. We do not set a good example of behaviour to the nation; in fact, we shock a great many people. Those of us who know that that is only our way of harmlessly letting off steam realise that it is not as bad as it sounds. Certainly a few Labour Members are possibly far better off making a noise here than doing it on the street corners.

Mr. Robert Adley: Has my hon. Friend noticed that during the broadcasting of the proceedings in the "Today in Parliament" or the "Yesterday in Parliament" programmes, the BBC always manages to select the most annoying or disagreeable insult which is hurled across the Chamber? This confirms my hon. Friend's point. The BBC always manages to pick up the point, Mr. Speaker, at which you invite the hon. Member concerned to withdraw, from whichever side of the House the remark has come. All this takes up an inordinate amount of time and would appear to confirm the fears that some of us had that the broadcasting of Parliament would result in this sort of procedure.

Mr. Stokes: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, which exactly confirms the point that I am making. The Lord President, who is listening to me, has, I understand, expressed himself as being entirely satisfied with the broadcasting of the proceedings of this place, but, of course, he does not exactly dislike the sound of his own voice. Mr.


Speaker recently referred to a new dimension as a result of broadcasting, and this, sadly, is true. But, of course, the position is not irrevocable. We can stop the broadcasts at any time if we have the will to do so. I consider that the whole question should at least be reconsidered by formal debate and be voted upon, otherwise I fear that we shall sink deeper and deeper into the mire, the public will come to despise us, and we shall in the end come to despise ourselves.

Mr. Robert Mellish: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a Select Committee of this House on Sound Broadcasting. It was appointed by the whole House and I have the privilege to be its Chairman. I asked hon. Members to write to the Select Committee if they had any views. The Select Committee is composed of Members of all parties. We have had no letters from individual Members, and the letters we have received from the public have mostly been in favour of sound broadcasting.

Mr. Stokes: Time is short, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that it is most important that a Back Bencher, who has the right to raise any subject which he considers to be of importance should raise this matter now. That is why I have done it. As the right hon. Gentleman will agree, it is a matter for the whole House and not in the least a party matter.
Finally, to touch the most serious note, at a time of the steady decline of the nation's fortunes—which, alas, we see only too clearly with the events in Africa, over which we seem to be unable to have any power or influence whatever—we in this Chamber are, I believe, helping neither ourselves nor our country in the sort of display that we provide. The situation in the country calls for nothing less than heroic measures, but we sit too long here and say too much. In the end, it is deeds and not words which count, and broadcasting cannot measure that.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I rise with pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) because I wish to speak very briefly on the same subject. I am partly inspired to do so by the fate of the Ten-Minute Bill which the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) wished to move at 3.30 p.m.
I think that this is an appropriate occasion on which to consider the first weeks of radio broadcasting and to draw some conclusions from it. Indeed, I draw the very opposite conclusions to those of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge. We have the opportunity to consider how best we should use the electronic media in this place.
We should not adjourn for Whitsun before these matters are discussed because there may be a failure of nerve on the part of the BBC, as the principal broadcasting agency, as well as on the part of some hon. Members if the reaction to the broadcasts is critical and hysterical. That is why we should consider today how the broadcasts have been carried out and whether they could be made more successful.

Mr. F. A. Burden: The BBC has power to monitor the number of people who listen to various programmes. Would this not be a good time for the BBC to give some indication, from its monitoring, of the number of people who listened when the broadcasting started and the number who are listening now?

Mr. Whitehead: That is precisely the kind of evidence that the Select Committee should be asking for. We must look back to the figures in the experimental broadcasting of the House on radio, which showed that there was a large increase in the number of people who listened to the edited version of "Today in Parliament" and "Yesterday in Parliament" when live extracts were broadcast. The figure increased to well in excess of a million people listening daily as a result of the extra liveliness which came about in the live extracts.

Sir Anthony Royle: Like the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I sit on the Select Committee on Broadcasting. We have met on several occasions. While some of us may have some sympathy with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) or some sympathy with the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), it is surely by letters to the Select Committee informing us of the views of right hon. and hon. Members on


either side of the House that we can put right any complaints about the broadcasting or find out what right hon. and hon. Members feel about it. We are sitting in Committee. We are waiting for complaints, comments and queries from right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Mellish: Before my hon. Friend answers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) must at least say a few words before I can call the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Whitehead: I give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee.

Mr. Mellish: We have already published in the all-party "Whip" an invitation to all Members to do exactly what the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle) has just said and there has been no response. We would ask for the sincere comments of Members of the House.

Mr. Whitehead: I very much desired to be a member of that Select Committee. Unfortunately, for mysterious reasons, it was not possible. I am glad that the Select Committee has come here to join me on the Floor of the House. At least two distinguished members of the Select Committee are here to listen to the response of the House on this question.
I make a point about the atmosphere in the House. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge would like the House of Commons to be like the House of Lords and become an unelected oligarchy. He would like the House of Commons to be like the House of Lords, which is a reverential mausoleum. Many of us do not wish to have that. Many of us feel that the cut and thrust of debate and argument in this place and the interjections, even in the somewhat artificial atmosphere of Prime Minister's Question Time, are the essence of parliamentary democracy and should be preserved. Such gibes and insults as are thrown across the Floor were thrown in just the same way in the time of Fox and Pitt and many of the other great parliamentary giants and were recorded as such.

Mr. Stokes: We were a better nation then.

Mr. Whitehead: We are the same nation. The only difference is that now all the people of the nation have some control over the power within it. That is what the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge and some of his hon. Friends do not like. The essence of parliamentary democracy is that the mass of the commoners should be able to see as clearly as possible, in the spirit of open government, what those whom they elect are doing. At the moment a few people can sit in the public gallery day by day—we know the pressure that we come under for tickets—and listen to what is going on. Those people have said that Question Time is a bear garden and have asked why Members shout so much. We have not minded about that because the general public have not known about it. The general public now know that Question Time is a noisy affair.
This great cry of pain from the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge is no more than the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in the glass. Any of us who listens to the broadcasts says what a noisy business it is, but forgets that he was shouting, too, not just the other fellow. I have heard the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge shouting out in his patriotic way many times. We should accept that radio is taking us—warts and all—to the people of this country. Therefore, the only question that we should be considering today and upon which I should like to hear the views of the Lord President is whether sound broadcasting is taking this over in the right way. I believe that there are problems.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing whether the House should adjourn for the Whitsun holiday? We are having a debate on radio broadcasting.

Mr. Whitehead: The essence of my proposition is that the House should not adjourn for the Whitsun Recess before we have discussed these matters because of the widespread comment and concern which has been raised upon them.
I began my remarks—I think before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker


—by saying that the problem was twofold. First, the broadcasting media have been shaken by the hostile response to the interpolation of live broadcasts upon the medium wave transmission. Secondly, many people in this place have been shaken because they feel that now the public outside perceive the House as a bear garden and not as the kind of honourable institution which it is believed to be by most people here.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Now that the public have heard this House on the radio, is it not a fact that they have got only a halfway picture? We need to go forward into television so that they see what they hear.

Mr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman leads me to my next point. The picture that is being presented now is only a partial one. It may well be that we should be suggesting, in terms of the relaying of our proceedings to the people of the country, that there should be less emphasis on snippets of Prime Minister's Question Time. The number of Questions tabled for answer at Prime Minister's Question Time has increased threefold. We have seen some of the great characters of parliamentary Questions, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), adulterated by a number of people coming into these proceedings. As long as people feel that Prime Minister's Question Time is the only thing that matters and that all they are concerned with is getting into that snippet of time and trading a few blows, there is bound to be an imbalance in coverage which will lead to a distortion of our proceedings.
We need not simply the transmission of Prime Minister's Question Time at 3.15 in the afternoon—cutting short even when the most important statements are made at about 3.30 and going away. The hostile response of many medium-wave listeners—some have written to me—comes because their programmes have been interrupted for this ill-explained, ill-thought out interpolation lasting only 15 minutes.
I suggest to the Government, particularly as negotiations about the licence fee are due to take place soon, that they should tell the BBC and the IRN authorities

that we want longer extracts on VHF, the transmission of whole debates on VHF and the first part of the working proceedings of Parliament taken not just from 2.30 to 3.30 or from 3.15 to 3.30, but a much longer time. There is the time and the space on the air waves to do that without the offence which is now caused to many listeners on medium wave and without the feeling that there is an imbalance in the way in which the coverage takes place.

Mr. David Stoddart: I just wish to query my hon. Friend's appeal to the Government. Surely he should make his appeal to the Select Committee. We do not want the Government deciding what should be broadcast and what should not.

Mr. Whitehead: This is a matter where the Select Committee proposeth and the Government disposeth. The Government are in perpetual negotiation with the broadcasting authorities.
Another matter that irritates people greatly when they listen to Question Time is that the commentary has to be overlaid. Someone has to get in and say which hon. Member is asking the Question and thereby further obstruct these rather obscure proceedings.
I think that one of the reasons for the hon. Member for Harborough seeking to bring in his Bill earlier was that it seems to many of us that with the sort of television technology that has been developed, under proper control of the sort that is being introduced in Canada, there is a much better case for televising the Chamber, and that has been strengthened by the imperfections and inevitable inadequacy of having sound radio coverage only. As long as there is a commentary which is trying to explain something that, in the nature of things, is rather archiac, a good deal of the impact is lost—not just the visual impact, but the placing and the sense of occasion that the audience would otherwise have.
The House should consider again at an early date the question of televising Parliament, and I should like the Lord President to tell us whether he feels that there will be an opportunity for these matters to be discussed and for the question of televising our proceedings, which


is not technically one for the Select Committee but one for the House, to be raised again before the conclusion of this Parliament.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I should like to comment briefly on what has been said about the broadcasting of the House. There are some hon. Members who feel that Britain has had a wasted day unless it hears their voice, but this has been a worth while experiment and it is too soon for us to make up our minds about how it should continue.
I hope that it will continue. In the long run it is inevitable that we shall be televised—just as inevitable as it was that we brought in Hansard. However, that is, no doubt, in the far future.
I wish to dispute one claim of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), namely, that the House is now notoriously badly behaved. I have not been here as long as some hon. Members but even in my time the House has been much more badly behaved. Anyone who sat through the Suez debates will be aware of that.
When I first became an hon. Member, I sat among the Conservative Party. There was one distinguished Member sitting near me who, when a Labour Minister said almost anything—even quite innocent things—raised his head like a hound baying the moon and emitted howls for the next two or three minutes. That custom has decreased.
It must also be put on record that the only Prime Minister who has ever been howled down and prevented from speaking in the House is Mr. Asquith, who was howled down by the Conservative Party, led by what is now regarded as the respectable House of Cecil. That was in the great imperial days of the nation. I do not think that we should attach too much importance to the amount of back chat that goes on in the House today.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: I am only too pleased to be talked down to by such a distinguished parliamentarian as the right hon. Gentleman, but I support what he says. I recollect that between 1970 and 1974 there were numerous occasions when the House had to be suspended because of the riotous behaviour

of Members of the Labour Party. We have not had such suspensions in recent times. Although there has been excitement from time to time, there has been nothing quite as bad as those scenes of disorder. We are getting better.

Mr. Grimond: I am glad to have had that powerful intervention from an hon. Member who plays an important part in the House and speaks with experience on these matters.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Many hon. Members wish to see the broadcasting continue, but many other people in many other spheres of life would like to see the broadcasting of work in which they are involved. Is it not a question whether the public wishes to listen to us and see us on television?

Mr. Grimond: That is probably so, but we shall only find out by trying it on the dog, and if the dog—in this case the public—shows that it does not wish to hear Parliament any more, no doubt we can give up broadcasting our proceedings.
The experiment has not been a complete success, but it has not been tried for very long and it should be allowed to continue until we get some figures about whether the public like it and whether it is serving any useful purpose.
I am one of those who are irritated from time to time to find the Order Paper full of Questions to the Prime Minister asking about his engagements for the day, whether he will visit Little Tooting in the Marsh, and so on. We know full well that the supplementary questions will be about something quite different. I do not entirely agree that this is the only way that one can put down Questions to the Prime Minister, but I agree that it is possibly the only way to get immediate Questions on the Order Paper about matters of important current impact. Otherwise, they have to be put down a fortnight or more in advance.
I think that the public, let alone this House, might be interested to know the views of the Government about something that happened the day before and was clearly an important matter. I have come round to the view that this is not as entirely bad a system as I thought at first, but I accept that it is a great departure from the traditional view of Question Time.
Might we not consider two sorts of Questions? We could have the serious Questions for those who wanted to know the current rate of unemployment pay, or whatever, which is not immediate, and a certain number of immediate Questions. In this latter category, people should not be expected to go through the rigmarole of asking about the Prime Minister's engagements for the day but should ballot for a number, with the hon. Member who draws No. 1 having the right to ask the first Question. It could be a Question out of the blue or notice could be given. It might put the Prime Minister in a difficult position, but he is well able to look after himself. He has immense experience of genial buccaneering at Question Time and, every now and then, he says something about immediate events which the public are entitled to know. We should get rid of this rather bogus system of asking about his engagements for the day or whether he will visit Ebbw Vale, or wherever.

Mr. Whitehead: Would the right hon. Gentleman go as far as the Canadian Parliament where the Prime Minister has to field Questions on any subject, which do not have to be tabled at all, for one hour a week? This leads him to make entirely spontaneous replies on a wide range of matters.

Mr. Grimond: That is something that the Committee on Procedure might consider in due course.
I now wish to pass on to some matters concerning my constituency that should be drawn to the attention of the Government before we agree to the Adjournment motion.
The first matter concerns freight charges. This is a perennial sore subject in my constituency. We suffer very heavily from extremely high freight charges. London and the Western Isles get large subsidies, not from local authorities but out of the Exchequer. I have asked Questions to demonstrate time and again how unfairly we are treated.
We have been promised by the Secretary of State for Scotland that he will make some proposals, but it is coming to the time of the year when it is important that something should be done. We have very heavy shipments of stock in the autumn. Freight charges are increasing

and the situation is becoming extremely serious.
I shall not go over the matter in detail because I have often done so before. Broadly speaking, we claim that either the sea services should be treated as trunk roads and supported by the Exchequer or, as at the start of the last war, there should be a subsidy on freights on various commodities.
The second matter that I wish to raise is the danger of oil pollution. My constituents and I were naturally extremely worried by the wrecks of the "Amoco Cadiz" and the "Eleni V". If anything like that happened in the Pentland Firth or around us it would devastate our fishing, apart from other disasters that it might bring in its trail.
A recent Question of mine to the Department of Trade elicited the information, given fairly and frankly, that the Department was not satisfied that there is an adequate number of tugs throughout the North of Scotland to deal with a disaster involving big tankers.
I also received a letter from the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), when he was Prime Minister, outlining the method by which oil pollution would be handled. It seems that four Departments would be concerned and that when the pollution drifted inshore, it would become the responsibility of the district or regional council. I do not believe that that will do. I do not believe that this divided responsibility is adequate for the sort of disasters that we have seen in the Channel or off the East Coast. There must be one command. I would be interested to know what is being done about tugs and other equipment.
It is not only a question of what will happen if a disaster took place in enclosed waters off Sullom Voe or Scapa Flow. Let us suppose that a tanker gets into difficulties anywhere off the North Coast of Scotland. It is not good enough to say that when the oil drifts inshore all the district councils will be responsible. As the Department of Trade admits it might take a very long time before any tug reached the scene of the accident. I hope that will be given urgent consideration.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the problems of spillage from inshore explorations could be equally dangerous? A


lot of those explorations no doubt take place around the coast, and such spillages could be traumatic to those many colonies of wild life which are of international consequence and which breed around the right hon. Gentleman's islands. Is he satisfied that there are arrangements to deal with local spillages from explorations, quite apart from a disaster?

Mr. Grimond: Of course there can be many sources of pollution. I cannot go into the whole matter on the motion for the Adjournment but, of course, I am in correspondence with the Ministries concerned about these other matters. But this disaster in the Channel drew attention to particular dangers. There are all sorts of other dangers. I admit that they are serious and I have been taking them up. However, the Channel disaster was a recent danger. In a frank statement the Government have said that they do not have tugs at present available off Scotland which could deal with a very large tanker in difficulties.
The third matter I should like to mention is fishing. We know that in June there will be an important meeting in Brussels about the common fisheries policy. Therefore, this is possibly the last opportunity that we may have to emphasise the importance of coming to some arrangement very soon with regard to the conservation of stocks. Off my constituency there has been a disastrous falling off in the numbers of fish caught in recent weeks. It seems that at last what we have all foretold is happening. The waters are being seriously over-fished. This is not to be wondered at, because trawlers which used to fish in other parts of the ocean are now driven into our home waters and the number of boats fishing is extremely large.
The particular point about which I should like the Government to give some indication, before the meeting in Brussels, is the question of licences. This may be a very reasonable method of trying to control the amount of fish taken out of the North Sea, but I am not at all clear how the Government envisage it being worked. Will they simply license only a certain number of foreign boats to fish in British waters? If so, that would be acceptable. Do they intend to license all the British boats so long as they abide by the quotas? If so, will there be any

restriction on when they fish—that is, will local boats have priority? That might also be acceptable. In that case the withdrawal of the licence would come about only if a boat exceeded its quota.
At present the only quotas in operation, as far as I know, are monitored by the fishermen themselves. That is not a satisfactory position. Of course, if licensing means that there will be a reduction in the number of British boats, that would be a serious matter for the smaller ports. It would then seem to me illogical to encourage new fishing enterprises, say, in the Western Isles. I hope that the Government will at some point give us their views about what the licensing system would entail.
I also believe that we should have a statement as soon as possible with regard to what compensation will be given to sheep farmers who suffered very large losses last winter. We know that the Government are examining this matter. As the lambing season is now far advanced or over, I hope that the Government will be in a position very soon to announce what help they will be able to give to these farmers and crofters.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I, too, think it a pity that we are not having a formal debate on broadcasting before the Whitsun Recess. However, it seems as though we are getting half a debate now.
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) talked about letting off steam. My reply to the hon. Gentleman, and to any other member of the public, is that it is much better to let off steam in this House of Commons than to let off bombs and bullets, because that is the alternative.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Rubbish.

Mr. Spearing: It may well be that 90 per cent. of what is said, 90 per cent. of Prime Minister's Question Time, 90 per cent. of the Divisions, or whatever, are meaningless to some people. I do not think that is true, but it may be. Even if it were, the other 10 per cent. is worth it. That is the point which should be made about matters in this House.
With regard to broadcasting, surely one of our problems is that broadcasting


extracts or resumés of our debates are the only outside broadcasts which are not designed or selected for the purpose of broadcasting. We are here doing an unusual and privileged job. We are not here primarily for the purpose of making a broadcast and we are not here, or should not be, as a sort of radio bran tub from which matters can be fished out and used for good broadcasting.
That is another problem which was not foreseen earlier. I do not believe that television would solve that problem, because one of the great difficulties is that so many things which are assumed to be background between those with a particular subject interest cannot, by their nature, be shared by the listeners. Indeed, they sometimes cannot be shared by some hon. Members who come in and listen. Such debates are meaningless, because the background knowledge is not there. I do not think that television will solve that problem. Perhaps more debates, broadcast much later with selections and commentary on the whole debate, rather than contemporary broadcasting, might be the best way of dealing with the matter.
I was mystified when I looked at the Order Paper today. I regret the way in which the Lord President has arranged the business. I seem to recall—he will correct me if I am wrong—that usually the motion for the Adjournment is put down on the Order Paper as first business. I could not understand today's Notice of Motion, because I thought it meant that we could not speak. It has obviously been tabled in such a way, and for such a purpose, of which I believe many hon. Members would not approve.
I do not happen to believe in the cause of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) or in the cause of television, for some of the reasons that I have just outlined. However, the hon. Gentleman has every right to introduce a Ten-Minute Bill at the usual and proper time. That is the right of Private Members. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I agree with his right to do it. It ill behoves the Lord President, in his position, to authorise such a proceeding which might make some people accuse him of underhand business and skulduggery. That is what some people will say. I am not making that accusation, but some

people will say that. Therefore, the Lord President owes it to the House—he said nothing during the points of order—to explain why today's business was arranged in this particular way.
That brings me to the point that I should like to put. I do not believe that we should adjourn the House until we have had an explanation from the Lord President about the difficulties last night over documents and the business relating to the ratification of the treaty making this House adhere to direct elections for the EEC. Again, I do not think that the Lord President's handling of this matter gives cause for confidence.
Several matters have emerged since that debate which must be put on record. First, during last Thursday's Business Statement the Lord President simply said:
Motion on the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 4) Order."—[Official Report, 18th May 1978; Vol. 950, c. 775.]
I do not believe that the Lord President did not know what was in that order. He must have known that it was about direct elections. He must have known that it ratified a treaty which was the subject of a Command paper brought before this House in 1971. He did not tell the House what the business was. He did not tell us in such a way that those printing the business of the House would print what it was about. It was left to my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) to ask whether this meant ratification of the treaty on direct elections. Then my right hon. Friend said "Yes, it is".
I do not believe that he was serving either the House or the nation well by not stating explicitly what that business was. It may be that the wretched European Communities Act, which the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) whipped through this House, was bad in this respect. It was a disgraceful Act and Section 1(3), which makes the ratification procedure subterranean, is one of the worst aspects of it. But that is no excuse for my right hon. Friend not stating the business properly. It was extremely difficult for hon. Members or, indeed, the Press or public, to know what was coming. Even worse was to follow, because the explanatory note to that order did not say what it was about either. It is not an explanatory note, despite the


open government professed by the Government on this issue.
To do him credit, my right hon. Friend the Lord President admitted this in answer to a question following Thursday's Business Statement. He said that the explanatory note was rather less than some would have wished, but he went on to say that he would arrange for a further explanatory memorandum to be placed in the Library. It was available in the Library, and it was available in the Vote Office. In fact, it was submitted to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
But I am sorry to have to say that this memorandum, signed by no one and simply labelled "Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 11th May 1978," was not a complete document. Although it purported to summarise the nature of this treaty, which is an Act of the European Communities, Cmnd Paper No. 6623, it described only some of the provisions of this treaty. It was said in that memorandum:
Articles 6 to 13 provide for disqualification, procedural and supplementary matters.
It did not say that Article 7 and Article 11 of that treaty covered the obligations of this House to a future common system of election. I confirmed with my right hon. Friend last night that that is indeed the effect of passing that treaty. We are now in principle committed to that common system of election for the future. However, the explanatory memorandum made no mention of that and, of course, the treaty itself was not available.
My right hon. Friend will know that when hon. Members go to the Vote Office asking for papers on any matter, they are handed a bunch of papers and they expect them to be complete. The same is true of members of the Press Gallery and the Lobby. Even if they had known what it was all about—which of course they would not if they had merely listened to my right hon. Friend, and gone and got those documents—they would not have had any real knowledge of that aspect of the treaty, either. Nor would they have been handed the treaty.
I do not say that this was deliberate subterfuge on the part of a wicked Foreign Office or an obtuse Government. I do not think that that is necessarily correct. But it means that the effect of

this was that, but for certain hon. Members, the nature of the treaty would have been less well-known than it was, and the fact that the House was ratifying perhaps the most important foreign treaty of the century—it may well turn out to be that, though I hope not—was unknown to the House itself.
I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will explain how this happened and why there was no list in the Library—merely this memorandum, which got there only last Friday, despite Mr. Speaker's ruling of 21st February 1966—and that he will make sure in future that this does not happen. We are already asking him to present a motion to this House which he promised last November defining the powers of this House in respect of Ministers in Brussels. We are still waiting for that motion.
Last Thursday, my right hon. Friend did not state the nature of this very important business when he made his weekly Business Statement. We had an explanatory note on the Order in Council which even he admits gave no explanation. We had an explanatory memorandum which clearly was not complete and which was not a proper substitute for the treaty itself. That treaty was not available in the Vote Office and, therefore, not available to members of the Press.
I put it to my right hon. Friend the Lord President that this is not good management of our democratic systems. Nor is it good management of the House of Commons. There are those who say that the whole of this EEC business is undermining our democracy and that it produces procedural rabies and problems of this kind. I think that they are probably right. It has been shown to be in this instance.
I do not believe that the Foreign Office is wicked or is trying to proceed by underhand methods. It simply happened that way, and we all understand that sometimes these matters go wrong. I do not think that my right hon. Friend wishes to conceal from this House and the public the real nature of the business that he puts before us. But that is what he will be accused of unless he changes the methods of working, the methods of documentation and the methods by which he announces business, especially in terms of definition of treaties orders.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will make a statement and give assurances to the House that this will not happen again. If it should happen again, not only hon. Members here but other people outside will be justifiably cynical and justified in saying that the Government and the people who work with it are trying not to help the House but to deny both the House and the British public facts which should be theirs and without which democracy cannot operate.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: There are two matters which I wish to raise before this motion is passed and we agree to adjourn. The first is one which affects mainly my own constituents but also those of a number of other hon. Members in North-East London.
My constituents are puzzled by a couple of problems which have arisen. They relate primarily to the plight of commuters generally around London. My constituents, in common with those of most other London Members, find it hard to understand why so little attention is given by this House to their plight and that we go off on our holidays leaving them to soldier on in the most appalling conditions and paying the most appalling fares to get to their places of work.
In Chingford we have a railway line which runs to Liverpool Street. Complaints about this line recently have been running at a very high level. Indeed, I found myself becoming a little bored with the correspondence reaching me telling me the same story over and over again.
Suffice it to say that, in a recent six-week period, some 51½ per cent. of the morning peak trains and 10 per cent. of the evening peak trains were cancelled. The odd explanation given for those cancellations was that they were due to staff sickness and staff shortages. That is odd, bearing in mind that we are in the position of having to dispose of this motion before we can consider the second item of business for today which the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill, in which the Greater London Council is seeking additional powers to create more employment in London at a time when British Rail cannot employ sufficient staff.
We all sympathise with British Rail, of course. We know how much it has

done to improve the Inter-City services. So I think that my constituents and I were prepared to put up with many of these problems. However, a week ago matters were made very much worse by a landslip on an embankment resulting in train services being cut to only two an hour. Even worse, whereas the trains were formerly of nine coaches, they are now frequently of only six coaches. So, instead of having a 12-minute service, there is now a half-hour service, and frequently the trains are only two-thirds of their normal length.
What is more, British Rail has told my constituents that it will take three months to repair the embankment and that nothing can be done to avoid single-line working during that time. If the main line to, say, Cardiff had suffered a landslip, I cannot imagine that it would have taken three months to resolve the problem.
My constituents, rightly or wrongly, think that Parliament should have some power to redress their grievances. They do not think that it is reasonable for me to tell them that there is almost nothing that Parliament can do about the day-to-day running of a nationalised industry. They are under the impression that publicly-owned industries are supposed to be responsive to the public through Parliament, and they will be extremely puzzled if we go off for our holidays leaving them to sweat on in these cattle truck conditions of shortened trains and cut services.
I hope that the Lord President will at least draw the attention of his colleagues in the Cabinet to the conditions under which my constituents and others from Walthamstow and Leyton are travelling and perhaps suggest that, if we have this Adjournment, some of his colleagues might like to try travelling at peak hours between Liverpool Street Station and Chingford to see what it is like to live in the real world instead of the world of chauffeur-driven limousines to which they have become accustomed.
My second point is that the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) has been sufficiently fortunate to secure a debate on Friday on the future of the British aerospace industry. I hope to hear that debate. Before we have it, we must pass this motion because the debate is conditional upon the House assenting to the


motion. I do not anticipate that debate—no doubt many views will be expressed—but I hope that all those who take part will be as well informed as possible, and I hope that there will be no division on party lines, because I do not see any party divisions between us on this matter.
I have sought to confer as widely as possible with people in the industry who can tell me all the options, possibilities and dangers. In the pursuit of those consultations I was approached by a number of shop stewards from ASTMS—Mr. Clive Jenkins's union—who wanted to visit me as chairman of the Conservative Party aviation committee. I will not refer to the factory from which they came because I do not want to embarrass them. I was only too pleased to meet them.
However, in the recent past, Mr. Jenkins has said very unkind things about Conservative Members who get involved in the affairs of his union. I thought it right to let him know that these shop stewards had asked to see the Conservative committee. In doing so I had in mind my own correspondence with Mr. Jenkins in the past. That correspondence arose from a circular issued by his union which says:
In ASTMS only a small part of the political levy is used for party political purposes. By far the largest part is used in achieving, through Parliamentary means, the aims and aspirations of its members.
Bully for Clive Jenkins. I wanted to know what I could do to help so I wrote to him and asked him to tell me how the largest part of the political fund was used to achieve the aims and aspirations of its members. I was a little surprised when I received his reply, which said:
You are not a member of the association and I cannot answer your questions.
I am not a member of the Association but I am a member of Parliament. If the Association is working through parliamentary means, I should know what it is doing. But Mr. Jenkins told me in effect to mind my own business, and in pretty clear terms.
Now I am a conciliatory kind of man and when the shop stewards asked to see me I thought it right to hold out an olive branch to Mr. Jenkins so I wrote:
A number of your members…have asked to meet me and other members of the Conservative Party Parliamentary Aviation Committee formally to discuss matters concerning

their employment and prospects for their employer.
In view of your letter of 4th October 1976 and your recent statement about interference by Conservatives in the affairs of your members' union I would be obliged if you would let me know if such contacts have your approval ….
I received a reply dated 22nd May in which Mr. Jenkins said:
I would prefer you not to do this as we have a highly developed structure of internal consultation embracing both this company, British Aerospace and the Aerospace Industry. Any parallel action would be unhelpful ….
In other words, only a couple of days before we discuss these matters formally in the House we receive a warning off from Mr. Jenkins who tells me not to talk to his members on this subject.
That is bad enough. But I am not too worried about Mr. Jenkins. I am worried about the effect on his members. We all know how many work in closed shops and what happens to those who upset Mr. Jenkins. He is currently trying to close down a whole branch because its members have been critical of him. What will happen to his members who try to talk to me about a non-partisan matter in the national interest? Are they to be persecuted and disciplined, brought to book and expelled from the union if they do not desist from that foul crime of talking to Tory Members? If, at the end of the day, they persist in doing that, will Mr. Jenkins persist and expel them from the union? If he does, their fate would be dismissal from their employment.
Before we pass this motion we should have a clear statement from the Leader of the House, who has experience in these matters, that the attitude taken by Mr. Jenkins and ASTMS is completely and totally unacceptable and that the Lord President and the Government deplore any efforts to stop members of trade unions from speaking freely to Members of Parliament on matters of common interest. I think that even the Lord President can say that. Nothing less will satisfy the House and the public outside.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I have no intention of following the last speaker but I do intend to return to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—the Ten-Minute Rule Bill. It is very unfortunate that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) should have


been deprived of the opportunity to have his Ten-Minute Rule Bill at 3.30 p.m. On the day when the hon. Member for Harborough was queuing up in order to get his Bill I went up to check whether there was still a slot left for the Ten-Minute Rule Bill. He must have waited in the queue for at least five hours for the express purpose of getting his name down for the opportunity of addressing the House at 3.30 p.m., and having a vote of the House on his Bill. Even if we manage to finish this debate a little early and get him a slot at 6.50 p.m., his opportunities for putting across his view and for getting a clear decision are greatly reduced.

Mr. John Farr: I appreciate very much the points that the hon. Member is making, and the fact that a vote at 6.30 p.m. or 6.45 p.m. would not be meaningful. Therefore, I have withdrawn my Bill. I intend to submit it to the House at a time when there is a really good turnout after we return from the Spring Recess.

Mr. Bennett: That is a good idea, but it is regrettable that the hon. Member, in order to get his Ten-Minute Rule Bill, had to queue up for such a long time. It is sad that we cannot protect the rights of back benchers on the Ten-Minute Rule procedure.
I do not want to delay our Adjournment in order to discuss the sound broadcasting of Parliament. One of the most important things that we must do in this House is to give the broadcasting long enough to settle down. Clearly, the broadcasting since Easter has distorted some of our procedures. However, it would be much better to wait until nine or 10 months have elapsed to ascertain whether it continues to do so rather than to start to jump to hasty conclusions.
The reason that I am concerned to persuade the House not to adjourn for the Spring Recess is to give a little more opportunity for Back Benchers to question Ministers and to raise issues that concern their contituents. I regret that we are returning not on the Monday but on the Tuesday. The Monday would have given us an opportunity usefully to discuss some of the less controversial issues not on party lines but issues that are especially important to the country.
I ask my right hon. Friend to reflect on the growing number of Select Committee

reports that have piled up. There appears to be no opportunity for the House to debate them. I draw his attention to the Select Committee report on violence in the family. The Government have produced their response to the report, but there has been no opportunity in the House to debate either the report or the response. In view of the Prime Minister's announcement of his concern about the family, surely there should be an opportunity for a full debate to consider child abuse and how we can strengthen and improve families and reduce abuse of children, especially those who are killed and maimed. If we cannot return from the recess a little earlier, at least soon after the recess my right hon. Friend could find time to debate rather more Select Committee reports, especially the one on violence in the family.
I have one reservation about the televising of our proceedings. It seems that the cameras would be concentrated in the Chamber. It would be useful if the cameras could scan the Committee Rooms to show the public some of the work that is carried on in Select Committees—for example, some of the questioning of witnesses—which in my view is as important a part of Parliament as the main debates in the Chamber.
I am also concerned that, possibly because of the broadcasting of Parliament, the opportunities for hon. Members to raise issues on the Adjournment of the House seem to have been reduced. I have had considerable difficulty in getting a slot for an Adjournment debate.
We should have more opportunity to discuss certain television programmes. For example, the "Tonight" programme last week dealt with some of the rather disturbing issues concerning housing associations in the Greater Manchester area. There is much concern in Greater Manchester about the way in which the housing associations have operated. On several occasions I and other hon. Members representing the area have seen Ministers to discuss the duality of interests of those on the management committees of the associations who also provide services to the associations.
I hope that there will be an early opportunity in the House to debate these matters. When members of the associations are also councillors there should


be clear rules and regulations about their declarations of interest when planning issues arise. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to assure me that Ministers will pursue carefully the accusations that were made on the "Tonight" programme last week about housing associations in the Greater Manchester area. I hope that he will consider carefully whether the law needs to be amended in relation to housing associations, the declarations of interest by members of the associations who are also members of local authorities and planning legislation in general.
I turn to an issue to which the House devotes little time—namely, waste management. I understand that the Departments of Environment and Industry have been revising the composition and methods of working of the advisory council on waste management. However, the House has not been given very much information about the change.
There are two tips in Stockport within my constituency. One of the tips is in South Reddish. The local council has been promising to close the tip for the past three years but it has always found it necessary to keep it open for a little longer. That has caused a great deal of nuisance to many of the residents who live near the tip. Many of the problems have arisen because it has been considered unnecessary to provide cleaning facilities for the lorries and other such facilities because it is expected that the tip will close at any time. However, its life continues to be extended. My constituents in that area are disappointed that it has not been closed.
In North Reddish the Greater Manchester Council is threatening to open a new tip in an area that is totally unsuitable for a tip. It would cause major problems, especially to those who have recently moved into the area to buy new houses that were built on what now turns out to be the edge of the site on which the Greater Manchester Council is planning to site its tip. That is totally unsatisfactory.
If the council were to go ahead with such a tip, it would have to break all the guidelines that have been published by the Department of the Environment on sites suitable for tipping.
We have a major problem in the Greater Manchester area, and a growing problem throughout the country, in that there is a lack of holes in which to put our rubbish. We must not just stop tips being sited in particular areas, such as in Reddish, but we must generally assume that we have not an inexhaustible number of holes in the ground into which we can tip rubbish. I should like to see the Government making the advisory committee much more effective and bringing forward positive measures to the House that would stop us creating waste at anything like the present rate.
The Government should find time for a major debate on the manufacture of waste, especially the over-packaging of many goods. Almost all our dustbins are full of large amounts of packing material that could well be saved. We should also consider encouraging the use of returnable containers. There is increasing pressure from supermarkets, which means that we are using one-trip cans and bottles rather than returnables. Much of the extra rubbish that is being created comes from that source.
I plead that an opportunity will be given after the recess for a major debate on waste management with a view to the Government bringing forward positive measures to try to reduce the amount of waste that is being created.
When I look round many of the national parks I am appalled by the amount of litter that is dropped in them. As an experiment in national park areas the Government would do well to introduce legislation to insist that containers of liquid are returnable. That would do much to reduce the number of tins, cans and bottles that are left lying around our parks.
If my right hon. Friend cannot tell us today that he is prepared to reduce the Spring Recess by one day to give Back Benchers the opportunity to raise these issues, I hope that he will find time after the recess to bring forward debates on the issue of duality of interests within housing associations, and waste management and the reconstitution of the advisory committee with a view to making it much more effective.

4.58 p.m.

Sir Anthony Royle: I suggest to the Lord President


that we should not adjourn for the Whit-sun Recess until he can give satisfactory answers to the three issues that I am about to raise.
The first issue has a connection with the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who earlier referred to the aviation industry. It appears that a state of confusion is prevailing at present in both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence regarding the sales of Harrier aircraft to the Chinese People's Republic. I have some interest in these matters because for nearly four years I served as a Foreign Office Minister responsible to Sir Alec Douglas-Home, now Lord Home of the Hirsel, for our relations with China. I have some knowledge of the original approaches that were made to us in 1973 by members of the Chinese Government regarding the possible purchase of Harriers.
At that time, for various reasons connected with foreign relations in other parts of the world, it was not possible to pursue that interest in any way. The Americans were then indicating that they did not wish to see the sale of Harriers to the Chinese People's Republic. Following that, there was a dearth of comment or interest in the subject for some time.
That continued following the arrival in power of the present Government in 1974. It seemed that they turned their attention more to improving relations with the Soviet Union than to continuing the good relations which had been formed by Lord Home and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) during the period of the Conservative Government from 1970 to 1974. That was understandable.
But more recently—in the last year—it has become clear that the sales of Harrier aircraft to China have again come into the forefront of comment on our relations with the Chinese People's Republic, and Peking. Questions have been posed in the House on several occasions on this subject to Ministers in the Departments of Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Only yesterday, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), the Secretary of State for Defence, in relation to the proposed sale of Harriers, said:
Everyone assumes that it is the Harrier that is likely to be wanted by China, but I have no

reason to think that that is necessarily the case.
In a later exchange, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller), the Secretary of State said:
If the Chinese interest in Harrier is confirmed, the usual political, stategic and economic criteria and our international obligations in relation to the sale of Harrier would have to be examined in detail before Her Majesty's Government could take a considered view.
Still later he said:
We have not, therefore, gone through the COCOM procedure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch explained to the Secretary of State his concern that we were perhaps moving into a chicken-and-egg situation: the Government perhaps wishing to have a formal request from the Chinese People's Republic before reacting in any way and the Chinese People's Republic waiting for a firm proposal from Her Majesty's Government before indicating their formal interest in the possible purchase of the aircraft. That was dismissed by the Secretary of State with the extraordinary remark:
As I explained, it is a bad practice to announce decisions before they have been taken, and no decisions affecting this matter have been taken."—[Official Report, 23rd May 1978; Vol. 950, c. 1318–25.]
It is a very bad practice and impossible to announce decisions before they have been taken, because one does not know what the decisions are. That is the situation facing us with regard to this important possible sale. It is not only a political decision but a decision which affects employment throughout the United Kingdom in the British aerospace industry. I have a constituency interest in that some of my constituents work at the Hawker factory at Kingston, but that is not why I am raising the matter today.
I am raising this subject today because there is no doubt that Chinese interest has been expressed, whether formally or informally, in the purchase of this aircraft. There is also no doubt from newspaper reports, which have not been denied by the Government at any time, that there is no longer any objection by our NATO allies or by America to the sale of this aircraft to Peking. Therefore, why are Ministers in the Department of Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs being so coy about the subject?
It is in the interests of our industry and of this country to sell this aircraft to China if it wishes to purchase it. I hope that the Lord President will refuse to allow us to go on our Whitsun holiday until we have firm and clear answers on this subject. I hope that between now and 7 o'clock he will send a carrier pigeon over the road to obtain some answers from the Department of Defence or of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on this important subject.
The second area about which I wish to beard the Lord President this afternoon is equally vital to the economic health of this country. I have spent 30 years working in the City of London. Today there is in the City a crisis which can affect invisible exports, to which the City is a large contributor, and the livelihoods and earnings of people employed in the City.
This crisis has ben caused by individual members of the Post Office Engineering Union working on a go-slow for the last few months and refusing to connect new office blocks in the City of London to the main telephone lines.
I believe that nearly 30 offices are ready to be occupied. Major British companies wish to move in their staff to carry on their role of working in the commercial interests of this country. They have got their telephones, telex and other equipment installed in the building where these offices are situated. The Post Office lines are under the road to the entrance to the buildinggs, but, because of action by members of the Post Office Engineering Union, the two points cannot be connected. As a result, there is a major crisis facing some very important groups in the City. This is presumably also taking place in other parts of the country. However, I have no detail of other areas where this might be taking place.
I gather that some of the companies concerned have approached the chairman of the Post Office and inquired why action cannot be taken to solve the dispute. He has told them that it is impossible to get any action taken until the union has its annual meeting in June. Therefore, these companies will be without communications and will be unable to carry out their business. The chairman of this major nationalised industry has to throw his hands in the air and say that

he can do nothing about the situation. Yet on the board of the Post Office there are worker-directors, presumably there to improve staff relations.
There is no other organisation to which commercial concerns can turn to link up their telex systems or telephone exchanges. They have to wait and lose money for their shareholders, put their employees in danger of losing their jobs and damage our balance of payments because of the actions of these few men.
I ask the Lord President to find out whether action is being taken by the Secretary of State for Employment, whether ACAS has been involved, and to give a statement to the House before we go away for a week or 10 days whilst our fellow countrymen, who are trying to help our economy, are unable to carry out their jobs.
The third matter I should like to raise has a close link with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford. It is concerned with London. I think that it would be most unwise for the House to adjourn for the Whitsun Recess and to leave the South Circular Road in its present condition. The South Circular Road winds its way through the narrow streets of South London. It traverses my constituency, travels over Kew Bridge, winds along the Lower Mortlake Road, through Sheen and Barnes into Putney.
The North Circular Road, which goes round the northern outskirts of London, is a main arterial road. It is able, although very congested, to carry the massive juggernaut lorries which travel along it. But the South Circular Road cannot.
I have endeavoured to see the Secretary of State for Transport today to discuss the rapidly deteriorating situation on the South Circular Road. It is daily becoming more and more intolerable for those who live on either side of it. Damage is being caused to a bridge going over a railway in my constituency—a bridge which was not built to take the traffic that it now carries. Danger is being caused to old people who at times are unable to cross the road for hours because of the constant stream of juggernaut traffic.
It is impossible for the Greater London Council or for the local authorities involved to take any action to reduce the


traffic or to signpost the traffic elsewhere, because they cannot get support from the Department of Transport to do so. A proposal was made by the Greater London Council, before the recent election when there was a change of power, to widen the Mortlake Road in one area. That would have eased the traffic into a bottleneck and caused even more chaos on the road from where the bottleneck started to where it joined Clifford Avenue further down. But that was stopped with the arrival of the new Greater London Council. The widening of the Mortlake Road will not now take place. However, it has not altered the situation. The increase in juggernaut traffic going through the whole area from Kew to Barnes continues. I have been unable to get the Department of Transport to take action.
The Lord President should consider carefully whether we should remain here next week until we are convinced that no action can be taken to reduce the traffic on the South Circular Road.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire: When listening to the last argument—which the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle) made with a straight face—I had the mischievous thought that my right hon. Friend might say exactly what the hon. Member requested him to say. No one would be more shocked if that hapened than hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.
I wish to discuss the broadcasting theme that was raised earlier. I am not a new Member, nor am I an old Member. I am probably at the in-between stage after 13 years but I always thought that Ten-Minute Bills came after Questions and statements. That is clearly not the case. I shall listen carefully to the Leader of the House because the accusation of chicanery and jiggery-pokery could apply to no one less than my right hon. Friend. He was and is one of the most strenuous fighters for Back-Bench rights. He has not been guilty of anything. My understanding is obviously imperfect but I though that Ten-Minute Bills were given a certain slot and that it should have been considered before this motion.
We have been told that the Bill has been withdrawn. It was a wise decision. I think that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) wants a more representative vote on the matter.
I did not vote for the broadcasting of Parliament. On the last occasion there was no substantial vote in favour of broadcasting, but the House carried the proposition. I have never believed that there was a demand for the broadcasting of Parliament. Had there been a demand for the public to know what goes on in the House there would have been an enormous increase in the sales of those newspapers which give most coverage to Parliament—The Times, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph—and the Hansard printers would probably have been rushed off their feet in an attempt to meet the demand for copies of Hansard.
However, since broadcasting was introduced the comments that I have heard have been generally complimentary. People have said that by accident rather than design they have switched on their radios, heard the Prime Minister or someone else and enjoyed it. They feel that it has brought home to them in a real way what is going on in Parliament.
I shall surprise the House. When the Bill is voted upon I shall put up two hands and march through the Lobbies faster than I have ever done before. I shall do that not because I think that the public want Parliament to be televised. I do not think that they do. The best way to kill that idea once and for all is to introduce it.
I know the dodge about something being only an experiment. That is the way to get the foot in the door and the thin end of a big wedge. Once it comes it will be permanent. I want this to happen. I shall inject a little humour into the debate. Many of the television programmes that we have now will face increased competition because I have some novel ideas. Some of them will meet with approval. We could do away with the tedium of traipsing through the Lobbies. When the House is televised I should like an impartial jury. When we have finished a debate and the Opposition and Government have had their chance we should not bother going through the Lobbies. Instead we should have an impartial jury comprising Joe


Gormley, Mick McGahey, Lawrence Daly, Clive Jenkins and probably the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to add balance. They would adjudicate as on the programme "New Faces" in which points are awarded for performance and star quality. On the basis of that they would decide whether the Government had won or lost.
Seriously, there is no demand for the broadcasting of Parliament. It would be a folly to embark upon television but we should finish the matter once and for all. The televising of Parliament would distort even more the public's impression of the House of Commons. We must be able to show that a half-empty House does not represent the non-attendance of Members. That can be done only by showing Members in their offices and Committee rooms. We should get the matter out of the way.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to assure me—I am pretty sure that he has not done anything wrong—that my understanding of the slotting-in of Ten-Minute Bills is wrong and that motions such as this take priority.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurh and Lymington): In order that we do not find ourselves being accused of hypocrisy we should ensure that there is an unknown demand, as we were told there was for devolution in Scotland, by making certain that nothing will happen unless more than 40 per cent. of those eligible vote in favour of it.

Mr. McGuire: That is an interesting thought, but I shall leave it there.
I now want to make two points, one a constituency point, the other a broader one.
We should now re-examine the boundaries of designated areas which have special development, development or intermediate area status. A debate on this subject is long overdue. I hope that the Lord President will be able to assure us that we shall have such a debate soon after we return from the recess.
The Skelmersdale part of my constituency enjoys the highest status—special development area status. It certainly needs it, with a male unemployment rate of 17 per cent. The largest part of my constituency is in the Wigan travel-to-work

area which enjoys only intermediate area status. Repeated requests have been made for Wigan to be made a development area. The current rate of unemployment in that area is 8·4 per cent., which is well above both the national and North-West average.
We should have a debate on this because we have had rather stale replies from the Government in written and oral replies. The Government say that whatever the claims of Wigan there is only so much jam to be spread around. They say that if it is spread further it becomes thin and tasteless and will do no good. This is a fallacy. It is not a question of there being a pool of money which has to be spread around. It is a question of giving to areas which have special requirements, because their industries have gone or they have high rates of unemployment. Unless they receive special assistance they will not be able to attract employment. Areas should not be disadvantaged by the grants that are available to incoming employers. It is not a question of the money being spread year by year.
Areas such as Merseyside desperately need to attract industry. The fact that this privilege is conferred upon them does not necessarily mean that industries rush to those areas. It means that areas which do not enjoy that privilege are disadvantaged when trying to attract industrialists to their areas.
I want to demolish the fallacy that exists about the need to spread even more thinly the jam that is available. This is a matter of not disadvantaging further areas which could attract industry if this benefit was conferred upon them. Wigan's case is unassailable. The Government could have given it development area status, but if we cannot have a Government announcement to that effect we should have the chance to debate the boundaries that are set for regional aid purposes.
My next point concerns all hon. Members. We are very badly served in the facilities that we have and this can be seen in our pay and conditions and in the services that we give to our constituents. This situation arises from a combination of factors, one of them being—I will not use the word cowardice, but at least it is a fear of public reaction.
In so far as people take an interest in our pay and conditions, they usually believe that we are living in the lap of luxury and enjoy all kinds of benefits. When one tells one's constituents the true facts their reaction is to say that it our own fault. I tell them that I am one of the fortunate ones in that I have a window-less room of my own, containing a filing cabinet and a couple of chairs. But they are amazed that we put up with these conditions. We are the architects of our own misfortune, because we refuse to complain for fear of this public reaction.
We have the power to make out a case for better pay and conditions. There is already a provision on the statute book to permit us three months after the Prorogation of this Parliament to go on to a certain scale point allied to the Civil Service. That scale has now risen beyond what we orginally expected. That provision stands until we rescind it, and I hope that we shall not. This is a subject upon which we should now demand a debate.
We have now abandoned the interparty rivalry that existed over this question. The issue will be thrust upon us in due course. It would be far better for us to anticipate it and develop our arguments accordingly than to react in the way that we sometimes do. The issue will arise with the fixing of salaries for Members of the European Parliament. Fortunately we shall not have the task of fixing those salaries, but they will be fixed at a realistic point, as will pension entitlement, in another place.
However, a debate will be forced upon us when the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments seek to determine their pay and conditions. They will not pitch them lower than ours, and it will be of a nonsense if, for fear of the public reaction, we do not take action to improve our affairs now.
I am not all that concerned to be well paid, although I am entitled to be well paid. I have told my constituents that the man who will not fight for himself will not fight for anyone else: I would have no faith in him. We need to offer our constituents a much better service. Members of Parliament must be treated more generously—not in order that they may get their hands on the money. For example, I want to be able to appoint a place in my constituency at which my

constituents can make daily contact with me by means of modern telecommunications. I want no dealings with the money, but I want these affairs to be handled here as they are handled in most modern democracies—whether in Canada, Australia or elsewhere—so that our constituents can get in touch with us when they wish to do so.
Unless we grasp this nettle we shall not be good Members of Parliament. For instance, we must have better research facilities so that we may more effectively challenge the Executive. Many hon. Members talk about challenging the Executive. But let us consider the facts. I was a coal miner before I became a Member of Parliament. I am not equipped, intellectually or otherwise, to be able to challenge the Executive on matters that are a bit above me. But I should like to have the services of people who could interpret for me what was being done and what I needed to do in return, and then leave me to handle the matter in my own way. I want to be better equipped, to be a better Member of Parliament for my constituents.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I wish to take up two of the points that the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) put forward as a basis for saying that the House should not adjourn until he had received a proper answer upon them from the Leader of the House.
He said that we should have better equipment and teams of people to tell us how to do our job. When I first became a Member of Parliament we were all demanding offices to replace the little cubby-holes from which we worked. Finally and very stupidly the House agreed to that. Little offices were built and now Members spend half their lives in them phoning their constituents. That has changed the whole character of Parliament. The Smoking Room, the Tea Room and the Bar are almost empty compared with what used to be the case.

Mr. McGuire: Why should they not be?

Mr. Fell: The Norman Shaw Building is no doubt full of Members of Parliament, but the House itself is largely denuded of them. The hon. Member misses the point when he asks why they should not be. Members of Parliament


should be in the Smoking Room, the Tea Room and the Bar because that is where people talk. If this is not a talking shop for the creation of opinions, it is nothing. That is what the place has missed since attempts were made to give everyone wonderful facilities. I cannot think why we do not ask for bedrooms with everything to go with them, including hot and cold secretaries.
The situation is becoming ridiculous. We are demanding a separate Civil Service to take care of our Select Committees. The Leader of the House will never agree to that. Now the hon. Member for Ince is asking for a third Civil Service to look after Members. The hon. Member seemed to be saying that he needed a Civil Service to tell him how to make a case. That is rubbish. He simply wants someone to lean on. Who is it to be? The new third Civil Service.
Another point which the hon. Member raised, on which I agree with him, was to ask for an early debate on help to the regions. My constituency has suffered two bitter blows in the last two weeks. One was when that grossly inefficient company Spillers shut down a firm in Yarmouth that had been there for generations, with the loss of 600 jobs. The other blow, which was just as unfortunate but in a different way and which affects far more people, was the tragic accident involving the "Eleni V". I therefore support him in asking for a debate about the special areas at some time.
Yarmouth, like Ince, now has a serious unemployment problem. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Employment about it a few weeks ago. This relates to the reason why I feel that the House should not adjourn because I want an answer from the Minister. It was suggested that I should have a quick meeting, not with the Secretary of State for Employment but with one of his juniors. The junior Minister was kindness itself. I met him quickly on a couple of occasions and we assessed the situation. He said "Let me know when we should have another meeting". That was some time ago and I have heard nothing since. I want to know what, if anything, has been done to help Yarmouth.
I should like the Under-Secretary of State for Trade, who has been dealing

with the collision in the North Sea, to make a statement to the House before we rise. My area is in a desperate fix as a result of the oil slick. It is affecting not only Lowestoft, Yarmouth and holiday resorts down the East Coast, but also the Midlands, in the sense that people are coming from that area to take their holidays on the East Coast. The problem also affects the many thousands of people from London and the South-East who come to Yarmouth and the East Coast ports for their holidays.
The situation is very sad. It is now Day 18 since the wreck happened, and no final decision has yet been made about what to do with the wreck. The position is almost unbelievable.
Let me try to sketch to the House what has happened in the last fortnight or so. On the first Saturday after the wreck occurred, the Department of Trade acted like lightening. We have never seen anything like it. Six small ships were commissioned by the Department of Trade to spray detergents on this filthy obscene muck. By the Sunday morning a Yarmouth tug owned by the local authority had captured this "rogue elephant" and was holding it in deepish water where it could not do much harm—certainly less harm than if it were held closer to the shore.
On Sunday morning I was on the spot from 8.30 or 8.45 at the coastguard station and I spent the whole morning there. The coastguards from the previous night, when the Department of Trade knew that a cable had been attached to this rogue elephant, were waiting for a decision. The men on the spot waited until 12.40 p.m. the next day for a decision as to what to do with the wreck. That does not sound a long period of time but, since sea conditions change quickly, it is no good hanging about. Although the water was fairly good at 8 a.m. on Sunday, by 12.40 p.m. it was becoming rough. That was when the coastguards were given the final decision to tow the wreck to a sandbank. The water was rough, and immediately the tow started the cable snapped. It then took about 10 days to attach other hawsers to the wreck—10 days in which this rogue elephant was thrashing about in the North Sea up and down the coast, and it finally landed up at Lowestoft.
I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Trade on the Monday following the wreck to give a specific order to a top salvage company to get hold of the wreck and to deal with the position. I had spent a long time on the Sunday discussing the problem with salvage experts and others. The Minister told the House and the news media that his man on the spot had full authority to act in an emergency. I must emphasise that there was an emergency in operation all the time. The whole time the wreck was floating about it was spilling oil on beaches up and down the coast. If the Minister had given a decision on the Monday to order salvage experts to tackle the matter, no doubt we would now have a different story. However, the Minister was unable to do so.
I must point out that the Minister has shown the greatest courtesy to me throughout this incident and also to the local authorities and people in the area, including the Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils. He has kept everybody fully informed of what has been happening. But the big "but" is that a tragedy of this kind cannot be dealt with by a committee of high-powered civil servants sitting in London. When one is dealing with a wreck, the situation changes from hour to hour, and indeed from minute to minute. On the Sunday morning the coastguard station needed at least 10 telephones to deal with all the inquiries that were going backwards and forwards. It must be said that the situation was not dealt with satisfactorily.
Although the Department of Trade representative in Yarmouth at the coastguard station had the power, he never at any time used it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to help the Chair by saying what effect our adjourning for Whitsun will have on the subject matter with which he is dealing.

Mr. Fell: I am pleased that you asked that question, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that I sometimes get carried away and your words will have a salutary effect on me. I hope that I shall be able to give you a satisfactory explanation of my reasons for going into the history of this matter. I hope to persuade the Government to take some quick action. At the

moment the salvage company is trying to beach the wreck on a sandbank two-and-a-half miles off Lowestoft. Yesterday the company succeeded in beaching it, but the wreck began to sink and it had to be taken in tow again. Since then the company has had to await a further decision as to what to do with the wreck. Instead of putting the matter in the hands of Messrs. Smidt, the salvage experts from Holland, it was decided to tow the wreck to a sandbank. Instead of telling the coastguards "You must do what you think appropriate", the Department told them "You must consult with London". They are still consulting. Again, it is the same story as on the first Sunday—no decision has yet been taken.
I think in my innocence that it is desperately urgent that a decision should be made before we go into the recess. That is why I am a little surprised that the Under-Secretary of State is not here. I have given him notice. I only pray that he is not here because he is personally supervising the decision, although it is incredible that he and the others should have been meeting all day but have not yet reached a decision and transmitted it to Smidt at the coastguard station in Yarmouth.
We are in a serious situation and the people of the East Coast must be worried. We are desperately worried, and becoming more so. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) is unfortunately unable to be here but wants to make certain points, which I believe the Leader of the House knows about. I pray that there will be a little urgency in this matter. If there is not, we shall perhaps face even worse catastrophe and dangers.
We do not even know how much oil there is to come. The holiday season will be starting shortly, and the people who go to the East Coast for their holidays will realise the gravity of the situation. The Minister had a report yesterday that 900 tons of oil was still aboard the wreck. I had a report yesterday that the amount was 2,500 tons. The day before that, I had been told that there was 561 tons. This is chaos, and it will continue to be chaos unless the salvage experts are given a free hand to deal with the wreck instead of having to wait for the decision of civil servants who are


not fitted to make quick decisions on such matters.

Mr. Grimond: Who is making the decision? That is what worries me about this situation. As far as I know, four Ministries are involved, and I understand that the matter may ultimately be left to the marine superintendent. If the Under-Secretary of State is not here because he is making a decision, is he in fact making a decision? If so, is he in a position to make it effective?

Mr. Fell: The right hon. Gentleman is as courteous as ever. The only thing that I can tell him is that, as far as I am able to find out, Smidt is not allowed to make the decision, now that the sandbank on which it has put the wreck has proved unsatisfactory, as to which other sandbank on which to put it.

Mr. Grimond: Who makes the decision?

Mr. Fell: It must come to London. It cannot even go to the Department of Trade's local representative because he can make it only in an emergency, and apparently this is not an emergency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What I want to know is whether the House has to remain sitting in order to make a decision.

Mr. Fell: I am grateful to you for helping me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I do not intend to keep the House more than another moment. I have not wished to keep the House sitting during a recess for some time, and I am just making my plea today for decisive action to deal with the wreck. I am nowhere near the record of the Leader of the House. He it was who, year after year, taking advantage of these debates on motions to adjourn, was a past master of the art. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are gentle in the extreme in comparison with one or two of the Speakers with whom the right hon. Gentleman was dealing in those days.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: And extremely generous.

Mr. Fell: And, indeed, generous in the extreme in comparison with one or two of the Speakers with whom the right hon. Gentleman dealt. However, while he may have got away with a most inordinate length of speech on those occasions, I shall not try to emulate him.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Max Madden: The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has demonstrated that these debates on motions to adjourn for a recess are most useful parliamentary curiosities, in as much, I suspect, as whatever the shortcomings of the South Circular Road, the difficulty of commuting in London, or, indeed, the disasters—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard them all.

Mr. Madden: I have sympathy with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But whatever disaster there may be off the Norfolk coast, I suspect that no hon. Member is going to resist the motion. Nevertheless, this is a useful opportunity for us all to raise matters that we think are of importance.
I express my sympathy with the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on the fate of his Ten-Minute Bill. I am wholly in favour of televising the House, as, indeed, I supported and welcomed the broadcasting of the House. But I think that so far in our discussions we have approached the matter in a rather strange way, in that we have been collectively trying to make a judgment as to the ratings of the broadcasting or televising of the House, compared with other forms of entertainment. We should be considering the matter from a different viewpoint—that is, whether the people have a right to know what happens in their name in the House of Commons.
I believe that the people do have that right, that the House of Commons is not a secret society, and that therefore we have a heavy obligation to broadcast and, in time, televise the proceedings. Indeed, I would like the proceedings of Select Committees and Standing Committees also to be broadcast and televised.
While I am on the subject of Select Committees, I would be grateful for some information from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the difficulties which, I understand, the broadcasting authorities are encountering in broadcasting the public hearings of Select Committees. I have tabled a Question about the matter, but I would appreciate any comment that my right hon. Friend may be able to make because I understand that we are, perhaps for the first time, in a very strange position, whereby


the broadcasting authorities are being prevented from broadcasting public hearings of Select Committees because the broadcasting equipment located in Select Committee rooms is, for some reason unknown to me, owned by the firm of shorthand writers which for a century has recorded the proceedings of Select Committees, and that unless the permission of the shorthand writer is given to the broadcasting authorities they are prevented from broadcasting the public hearings of Select Committees.
It would, no doubt, be of interest to the hon. Member for Yarmouth to know that the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Public Expenditure is at the moment carrying out an investigation into ways of avoiding disasters at sea and is interviewing officials and Ministers from the many Departments involved. I think that those proceedings would be extremely interesting to many people throughout the country if they had an opportunity of hearing them being broadcast, an opportunity which at present they are being denied.
I turn now to the two points I wish to emphasise, embodied in the resurgence of a dangerous tendency of the Tory Party to try to make certain matters its own personal property, witnessed recently in its activities on the questions of immigration and law and order. I think that we are all aware that the Leader of the Opposition over recent months has sought by distortion and misrepresentation to exploit politically the anxiety and apprehensions of certain sections of the community about immigration. This was done in advance of a Select Committee report on immigration and race relations. Several months ago my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister invited the Leader of the Opposition and leaders of minority parties in the House to take part in a joint meeting about immigration and race relations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Just to refresh my memory, I have had a look at page 9000 of the Order Paper, where I read that we are supposed to be debating a motion,
That this House at its rising on Friday do adjourn till Tuesday 6th June.

Mr. Madden: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am most grateful for your guidance, but I am seeking to develop

my argument on the need for a debate on these matters before we adjourn. It is extremely important that we should have such a debate. The Leader of the Opposition and many other senior members of the Conservative Party have publicly advocated the need for a debate in the House on the issue of immigration. The right hon. Lady said that she would be responding to the Prime Minister's invitation for joint talks when the Select Committee reported, which it did some time ago.
We have seen certain policy proposals on these matters issued by the Conservative Party. I heard the Leader of the Opposition express anxiety to have a debate after the publication of the Select Committee report. We must all agree that we have not seen an atom of pressure by the Opposition for a debate, still less any willingness by them to devote any Supply time to a debate on immigration and race relations. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was recently moved to describe the right hon. Lady's involvement in these matters as a brief and embarrassing interlude. Many of us regard that as a very reasonable conclusion.
I should like now to refer to a second matter, an extraordinary speech made within the past few days by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). Under the headline
Socialism causes crime—Joseph",
he was reported in The Guardian as saying at a meeting in Cornwall that
a Conservative government would not simply beef up police strength but 'reassert that crime and violence are acts of free will.'
The report continued:
'Socialism has taught that it is deprivation, not delinquency, that lies behind crime and violence. Many socialists have tended to believe that children grow up with a natural sense of right and wrong and need neither to be taught moral values nor to be encouraged in self-restraint. Indeed, self-restraint and self-discipline have been actively discouraged in favour of self-expression.'
Consequently, socialists had legislated to take juvenile crime 'out of the hands of lawyers and magistrates and to put it into the hands of social workers.'
Asserting the need to swing the pendulum back from social work to the law, he conceded that the pendulum must not swing so far as to bring about the neglect of social work of proven value.
But he quickly returned to the 'endless emphasis on compassion', which seemed to create 'more sympathy among intellectual


socialists for the criminal than for the victim.'
At last—it seemed an afterthought—he
admitted, however, that the Church had 'lost its self confidence and distinction between right and wrong.'
We need a debate so that these matters can be argued publicly in the House.
The Tory Party would be extremely wise to realise that it does not enjoy a monopoly of concern about crime and violence, a monopoly of compassion for their victims, or a monopoly of wisdom in promoting policies to combat crime and violence. I believe—and I am sure that many of my colleagues agree—that there is no merit, wisdom or decency in Tories, however eminent or obscure, seeking to pretend that they and they alone are concerned about these matters. It is a grave insult to those who have the audacity not to belong to the Tory Party to say that those of us who happen to be Socialists or Liberals or who belong to no particular party are complacent or do not care about law and order and combating crime and acts of violence, or have no compassion for victims of such acts.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Lord President will be able to indicate when he believes a debate will be held on immigration and law and order. I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) in calling for a debate on the Select Committee report on violence in the family—

Mr. Tony Durant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Madden: No. I must conclude now.
The debate suggested by my hon. Friend would be a most useful vehicle for us to discuss these matters, which are long overdue for debate. There is an urgent need for a debate on them in the interests of the public whom we represent, a debate which can be heard on radio and I hope in due course on television.
We neglect discussions on these matters at our peril. Such neglect only gives rise to interpretations which are entirely wrong and to false impressions. We should all have an opportunity of declaring ourselves on these issues, and only a debate can give that opportunity.

5.56 p.m.

Sir John Eden: Before the House agrees to the motion, will the Leader of the House say a word about Colin Semple? Colin Semple, who for two years or more had been serving as a warden at a youth hostel in West Germany, was recently apprehended when crossing the frontier in Germany from East to West, and it seems likely that he may be accused of trying to assist in the passage of an East German citizen out of that country.
I understand that Colin Semple is in gaol in East Germany awaiting the due processes of the legal proceedings. His mother, who is my constituent, is naturally concerned about the position in which her son finds himself. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman three questions about that position?
First, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that Colin Semple is being well treated and fairly looked after? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman say that Colin Semple is being represented with competent, independent, legal advice? I understand that he has accepted the recommendation that he should be legally represented. Can the right hon. Gentleman give assurances about the status of that representation?
Thirdly, and in my view most importantly, will the right hon. Gentleman ask fellow Ministers to do what they can to persuade the East German authorities to speed up legal proceedings so that the next stage is not too long delayed? I believe that there is a likelihood that it could be several months before court proceedings take place. I hope that that is not so and that matters can be speeded up.
I am extremely grateful for the careful way in which the Consular Service of the Foreign Office has already inquired into Colin Semple's well-being. I am grateful to it for the trouble it has taken to obtain as much information as possible about him, but it would be helpful for the House to be reassured on these matters before agreeing to the motion.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Before the right hon. Member sits down—if I may use the phrase used by others in such circumstances—in view of the nature of the


matter which he has raised, may I say at once that the British Government are taking the closest interest in the case and are doing everything they can to ensure that any trial will be fair? They have made inquiries about the conditions in which Mr. Semple is being held and, as far as we can gather, he has no complaints. Her Majesty's consul intends to visit him regularly to ensure that that remains the situation. Arrangements are being made for Mr. Semple to be represented by a prominent GDR lawyer, which is the normal practice in such cases. I give the right hon. Gentleman, in general terms, the assurances that he has asked for. Her Majesty's Government will, of course, do everything they can to assist in this case.

Sir J. Eden: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and the assurances that he has been able to give. May I ask him to take note of my interest in this matter? Will he do his best to ensure that the closest possible attention is given to the legitimate needs of Colin Semple?

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I wish to make my contribution brief because I understand that it is hoped that the debate will conclude fairly soon. It is important that my right hon. Friend the Lord President and the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) should be given time to speak. I regret that the House did not consider the Ten-Minute Bill dealing with televising our proceedings because I believe that it is time for us to look again at this question. We ought to examine the broadcasting of our proceedings and discuss televising them, too. I hope that we shall be able to return to that debate in the not too distant future.
I wish to say why I regret that we are going into recess and why I believe that we ought to come back earlier. One subject which the House must debate is that of foreign affairs.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: indicated assent.

Mr. Evans: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member will be nodding in a minute or two. The Opposition are getting into a strange position on foreign affairs. Earlier the Leader of the Opposition demanded that the Prime Minister

should agree to her proposal that the Soviet Union ought to be looked upon as the common enemy. For the sake of international relations it is imperative that the Opposition should clarify their position.
It is not simply that the Opposition are adopting a tremendously anti-Soviet stance. They are also taking an anti-American stance, which is just as damaging to international relations. The Opposition spokesman on defence, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) made an attack on President Carter because he had postponed a decision to manufacture the neutron bomb. Whatever our views on the neutron bomb, I believe that mankind was pleased to see his willingness on the part of the American President to make such a gesture during the discusions on disarmament so that there could be some international agreement. Yet here we have the Opposition defence spokesman making an attack on the American President—

Mr. Tebbit: rose—

Mr. Evans: The right hon. Member is not alone. We have had the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), the policy-maker for the Conservative Party, saying that the world had cause to be jittery about the competence and intentions of Jimmy Carter. Why is there this concerted attack by the Opposition not only on the United States but on the Soviet Union?

Mr. Tebbit: rose—

Mr. Evans: We have had the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), the Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland, saying that America was leaderless and effete. It is imperative that we have a two-day foreign affairs debate at an early date so that the Opposition can put their viewpoint. We must know why, at this time, they have decided to take such an anti-American position.
I believe that the Opposition's position in relation to America is related to the fact that at present there is a United Nations conference on disarmament taking place. At a time when world leaders are gathering together, when we know that the Western and Eastern worlds are spending about £200,000 million a year on armaments in preparation for a world


war that no one wants, we are hearing from the Opposition Benches—I know that it is not uniform—this sabre-rattling, this demand for increased arms expenditure and an attack on those in America working for nuclear detente.
There are other matters which I would have liked to raise. I ask the Leader of the House, if we cannot return earlier from the recess, to ensure that arrangements are made through the usual channels for a foreign affairs debate to be held so that we may clarify where the Opposition stand on these matters. As days go by the chances of the Opposition becoming the Government grow smaller. Nevertheless, they are the alternative Government and it is vital that the people should understand where they stand as a result of their anti-Soviet and anti-American attitude.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I am pleased to be able to follow the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). I do not believe that we should agree to the Adjournment motion because of the danger to world peace caused by recent events. It is important that the Opposition Benches should correct the suggestion, orchestrated by those Labour Members below the Gangway, that there is anything anti-American in the attitudes which some have taken. There have been considerable shifts in the balance of world power as a result of recent events which pose a threat to all the peoples of the world.
The taking over of Afghanistan by an essentially Soviet regime, the negotiations to take over an area in North Pakistan and events in Africa form a threat to the people of this country and America. The latest events in Zaire pose a new problem for this reason, that instead of openly training Cuban mercenaries to take over African countries by force, a new technique has been evolved. This technique involves the training of people called rebels who appear to have no particular loyalty to anyone but who operate under the neutral description of rebels. By giving these people orders to murder White technicians who are necessary to sustain the economy of a Black country the Russians are thereby able to destroy the economy of that country and thus deprive its people of the prosperity they

deserve and which they can have only as a result of the technical capabilities of the white people. This is a new and real threat which Russia poses to Africa and to the supply of all the things which the Western democracies need.
In the face of that threat, is there an American commitment to stand up for Western ideals? It is because we fear that the commitment is weak in the present American Administration that we are anxious to demonstrate the weakness of our great ally, which in power, if not in leadership, is the leader of Western democracies, indeed of all democracies throughout the world, against the threat of the Soviet Union which has the avowed intention—which Labour Members apparently do not resist, of world domination. It is because Russia is a threat to all of us that we are anti-Russian—not anti the Russian people but anti the intentions of the Russian Government.
It is because, in the face of that threat, we fear that the American Government are anxious to abandon resistance that we are critical of America. It is dangerous that we should not be committed to the defence of Western idealism and resistance to Russian imperialism, takeover and influence throughout the world. I want the House to debate this matter so that in Europe we may establish a common foreign policy by which we at least, whatever America does, will defend Western interests, Western lives and African lives and interestsa gainst destructive Russian interference.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. George Park: In the light of a decision taken on Monday of this week in Coventry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am troubled that we should be going into recess. I refer to the declaration of redundancy of 1,000 employees at Massey-Ferguson and a smaller number in Kilmarnock, in Scotland. Any redundancy is, of course, regrettable, but it is particularly so in this case because, as most hon. Members will know, Massey-Ferguson is a producer of agricultural machinery which is desparately needed, particularly in Third world countries.
As this is a multinational company, I hope that the solution will also be multinational. I should like to think that before we go into recess the various Departments of Government which could


be interested and initiate action through the United Nations, particularly the Food and Agriculture Organisation, could spark off action to restore the position.
It may be said that I am making special pleading for this one company—it is not the only company that produces agricultural machinery, of course—but in the light of the fact that we hear appeals from time to time concerning people who are starving in different parts of the globe, we ought not to let this redundancy pass unnoticed. We should be pressing with all the means at our command to restore the position so that the people concerned can continue to contribute to the food-making processes of the world.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: I am grateful for the opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak in the Adjournment debate. The Lord President knows perfectly well—I have asked him two or three times about it—that I and many hon. Members on each side of the House believe that there is an urgent need for a debate on the aerospace industry. I ask him yet again whether he will use his best endeavours to see that the House gets the chance to debate the purchase by British Airways of British or American aircraft. If this cannot be arranged before the Whitsun Recess, will he, before we rise for Whitsun, make a statement informing the House that we can have a discussion and a debate on the issue before the Cabinet comes to a decision?
I want to talk briefly about the problem touched on at length by my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), even though he dealt with only one aspect of it. I refer to oil pollution and the role of the oil companies in our society today. Many beaches around our shores are heavily polluted with oil. In The Times today there is a statement from the advisory committee on oil pollution of the sea that
In two out of three cases the source of the pollution was not identified, so the cost of cleaning many beaches fell to local authorities with no possibility of compensation.
This is a wholly unsatisfactory position. Much of the oil pollution is caused by collisions at sea involving oil tankers either owned or chartered by the oil companies.
It seems to me that the rules and regulations governing the movements of oil tankers in the international sea lanes of the world are rather less rigorously enforced than the rules governing the behaviour of the driver of a Mini who goes up and down Whitehall. It is certain that if one were to drive one's Mini into a bollard one would be expected to prove that one was a fit person to drive a car and had all the necessary documentation. But I am advised by Lloyd's that that sort of simple requirement is not necessary before Lloyd's pays out compensation, which may help those who lose their ships but does little or nothing to help the local authorities who are left to clear up the mess, and that is a wholly unsatisfactory position.
We hear today that in the oil pipeline between Southampton Water and London more than 90 faults have been disclosed by electronic checking. Who is to be called upon to pay if these faults develop into major leaks? What are we told about the activities of the Department of Trade in its dealings with the oil companies? I find it unsatisfactory that the Department of Trade, which has responsibility for the activities of many of the oil companies, is itself concerned in or responsible for the effects of pollution. This is ludicrous. We have a Department of the Environment. Surely that is the Department which should be concerned with protecting the environment.
I turn briefly to deal with some other activities of the oil companies, which concern my constituents. Oil has now been discovered in substantial quantities in Dorset. We are told that there is likely to be oil under the ground in a line running from central southern Dorset through to the Isle of Wight. A local paper in my constituency had a story last week on the possibility of oil being discovered under a number of small communities in my constituency.
People are fearful and want to know what effect this will have on their lives. Is it to be left to the oil companies to decide, if there is oil there, whether it should be extracted? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give consideration to these matters and give some assurance that there will be a chance for this House to debate the issue at an early date.
The fishermen in my constituency are currently facing problems because British Petroleum unilaterally decided to drag sonar equipment along the bed of the sea, without even consulting the fishermen. The company would not tell them where the dragging was to be done, for reasons of commercial secrecy. Lobster pots and fishing nets were damaged before we were able to stop this activity in the last few days.
However important their activities may be to our economy, the oil companies of this country do not have a God-given right to assume that anything and everything that they want to do is right and proper, while the people whose lives may be affected have to sit by and accept these decisions. Strategic planning decisions should not be taken behind closed doors by the oil companies, by county councils or by Government. Anyone who has seen Southern California will know what can happen to communities and to the environment when the oil companies are allowed to have their unfettered way.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, before we rise, will be prepared to consider recommending to the Prime Minister that there should be an independent inquiry into all these matters, so that people may have their fears allayed and be reassured that public opinion will be thoroughly consulted before any further damage is done to our environment.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I thank those hon. Members who expressed concern at the fact that my Ten-Minute Bill was lost today. Although I do not think that we shall have time to debate the matter again before the recess—indeed the rules of order would prevent this—nevertheless, I think there is an important point of principle involved, in that a Ten-Minute Bill had been arranged for today for some three weeks in advance.
I remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of a matter which has been called to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) relating to an identical case which occurred on 29th April 1970. My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate had a Ten-Minute Bill on the Order Paper for that day. He had managed to obtain it three weeks in advance. He lost it due to the intervention of a similar combination of Government

circumstances. At that time, the then Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Council—now Lord Peart—said, at the conclusion of the debate, that he would look at the matter sympathetically if it ever arose again.
The Leader of the House used to be concerned with the interests of Back Benchers. Indeed, he has fought vociferously for their rights for many years. I hope that he will find time tomorrow to read that little debate and to consider whether there is something to be learned from it. In that debate, suggestions were made how the rights of a Back Bencher could be preserved. I ask him to look at it tomorow and to see whether the position can be restored.
I particularly thank those who expressed an interest in the Bill. I have temporarily withdrawn it. I give due warning that I intend to table it again on a day when I am sure that there will be a substantial turnout, so that we can have some really representative opinions, rather than just the views of the handful of people—40 or 50—voting tonight, which would not give a true picture of the feelings that exist.
The European constituencies have been presented to the country on a plate and it does not look as though there will be adequate or proper time for the views of those who are concerned with the way in which a European constituency is made up to be discussed and taken account of in the way that they should be. I take a different view from that of many people. I do not think that a European constituency is very important. I play whatever small part I can here in ensuring that the House of Commons has predominance over these matters.
Nevertheless, the European Parliament will be important to an extent. Some people feel strongly that the European constituency in which they have been grouped is the wrong one for geographical and ethnical reasons. My constituency of Southern Leicestershire is grouped with Northamptonshire. Some people say that that is wrong and that the Leicester area should be one constituency. People who have objections and feel that these constituencies are meaningless should have a chance of having their objections properly considered, even if it means postponing the date of European elections.
There has been no more important reason for the House not rising for the Spring Recess than the fact that although Mr. Speaker's Conference on the electoral law in Northern Ireland reported many weeks ago, there is no sign of legislation. Even if the Lord President is not prepared to give a date—I have asked him this question on three successive Thursdays during business questions—when what only needs to be a short Bill will be proceeded with here, can he produce the Bill so that there may be public discussion on it inside and outside this place?
A three- or four-clause Bill is all that is needed. What is to prevent its being tabled during or before the Spring Recess week? When the House returns one would hope that the Leader of the House would feel obliged to proceed on this important matter on an all-party, agreed and co-ordinated basis. With those few words, I conclude by saying that I would like to see the Spring Recess postponed until further steps have been taken.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: The whole House has shown considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), who was unable to move his Ten-Minute Bill. He has a grievance, or at least a cause for complaint. I am slightly surprised that some precedent between 1969 and 1974 has not been quoted. My hon. Friend referred to an earlier occasion when the then Leader of the House referred to the matter. A service may have been done my hon. Friend by his not being allowed to move his Ten-Minute Bill at 3.30 p.m. because he has now withdrawn it and received support for doing so. No doubt he will bring it forward again, and it may be that there will be even greater interest on that occasion.
To be fair to the Government, the procedure followed on this occasion is the same as has always been followed on these occasions, and it may have to be reconsidered, in view of what has happened. The fact that my hon. Friend's Bill related to broadcasting probably caused my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) to launch into a characteristic and enjoyable speech on the broadcasting of the House.
This is no occasion for a debate on the broadcasting of the House. What has been said about the matter today cannot be a substitute for a debate that will have to take place. However, it is too soon for the House and hon. Members to feel that we have enough experience of it. We should return to the matter by way of a major debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge complained about the background noise, which sounds awful when it comes over the radio. The other side of that point is that if the House had to put upon itself the unimaginable restriction of being silent, it would be a ghastly and boring place. In years gone by, when the House was infinitely rougher than it is now—certainly in the last century—the situation might have been different if it had been broadcast. Broadcasting might have made the Hansard of that period rather less interesting. Broadcasting, including the background noise, has altered the character of the House already, apart from the extra Questions and supplementary questions that have flowed from it.
I ask the Lord President whether he has anything further to say about the dispute on the printing of parliamentary papers. I do not wish to press him too much, but there is no Hansard for the 12th, 13th or 14th April. We are awaiting a further statement from him as soon as he is able to make it. We would like to know when he will be in a position to tell us a bit more.
The most important matter that has been raised in the debate is that concerned with oil tankers and the pollution therefrom, especially in circumstances of disaster, which appear to be more frequent now. The matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) forcefully and strongly, and also by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley). Had my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) been able to be hear he would have wished to raise the problems that the "Eleni V" is causing to his constituents and to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft gave notice to the Lord President that he was to raise the matter.
Complex and difficult problems and decisions have faced the Government over this catastrophe. Local authorities have showed great understanding, restraint and forbearance in the matter. However, the Lord President must realise that oil is still spewing out of this wreck and has been going up and down the coast outside Yarmouth and Lowestoft for the last 18 days. There is great concern about the pollution of beaches, about the environmental consequences to fishing and wild life, and about the loss of business to the holiday industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth and what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft are concerned with the several questions. Have the Government received further advice from salvage experts what to do with the wreck and where the hulk can be beached and the oil pumped out? How much oil is left in the hulk, and how long will it take to pump it out? Will the Government find it possible to make funds available to enable the local authorities to advertise that a number of beaches are not affected and have their usual golden sands? Can we be assured that there will be an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the disaster, so that the lessons can be learned and better provision made in the future to deal with these emergencies?
My hon. Friends are being bombarded by worried constituents. People miles away from those constituencies are concerned about. Certainly my hon. Friends' constituents are worried because they feel that the chain of command and the decision-making machinery have been at best faulted and certainly are less than satisfactory. A clear statement of action is, in their view, essential. I think that the whole House will support them in that request.
A number of other points were raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle) raised the question of connecting telephones in the City of London. This has been impossible in certain buildings because of industrial action by members of the Post Office Engineering Union. It is not only in the City that this has occurred; it is also happening in Cambridgeshire. In my constituency there are

200 or 300 prospective telephone users who cannot be connected.
I have been in touch with the Secretary of State for Employment and I understand that ACAS is trying to bring the matter to a conclusion, but it was depressing to hear that it may be that no conclusion can be reached before the union's annual conference next month. It is extraordinary that hundreds of people in the City and elsewhere are having to wait to be connected to the telephone. We should like more information on this point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) mentioned the problems of the aerospace industry, expressed his views, and asked for a debate on the subject in the near future. The matter was also raised by another of my hon. Friends.
Most of the issues that have been raised, apart from oil pollution, are comparatively of the second rank, even though they are important in themselves. If there were to be a serious challenge to the motion, it ought to come on the issues that are really important and are really worrying the House.
I support what the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) said about the need for a foreign affairs debate. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said last week that we would give one of our Supply Days as part of a two-day debate. The Leader of the House responded in an encouraging way. We certainly think that foreign affairs must be debated urgently.
The events taking place in Africa are a source of profound anxiety. We had a debate recently on Rhodesia, but Africa in general represents an extremely significant strategic development in the balance of power in the world, and that continent will be central to any foreign affairs debate that we have in the reasonably near future.
Linked to that aspect are our anxieties about defence. There was a defence debate earlier this week, but there is continuing anxiety about the level of our forces and the level of recruitment. I am sure that the whole House will agree that this is a matter of the first importance.
At home, the rising crime rate is a great anxiety and I agree with the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) that it is


something that concerns the whole House and not just one side of it. There are many undetected crimes and there is concern about the level and morale of the police force. That is certainly something about which the House will feel anxious until the Government bring forward proposals to put the matter right.
Another important subject is the economic outlook. There have been one or two items of slightly better news recently—but only slightly better. The Government will make a great error if they seek to exaggerate the importance of minor improvements in the news. For example, the recent fall in unemployment is immensely welcome, but too much should not be made of it, because unemployment remains one of the greatest problems facing our people.
There have been requests from my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth and the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) for an extension of the special development areas.
These are the crucial matters that have emerged in the debate and that gave us anxiety about the motion. No doubt the Leader of the House, after three hours of the debate, will do his best to answer the various points and seek to give the assurances that have been sought. It is upon the extent to which he is able to do that that the House will come to a conclusion on whether the motion should be passed.

6.34 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has left the House on tenterhooks. We shall have to wait to see whether I can satisfy him and his hon. Friends on these delicate matters. As the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) knows, I am always eager to gratify him when I can. If he pressed me too hard I might have to withdraw the motion, but I shall not make that threat too belligerently at this stage.
No one could complain about the tone in which the various matters have been raised. The questions that have been referred to are, for the most part, proper matters for a debate on this motion.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire asked about the printing of Hansard. I appreciate the inconveniences to the House that arise when copies of

Hansard are not printed. Her Majesty's Stationery Office is doing its best to overcome the difficulties that have arisen from the problems we have had in the past.
The basic problem is that the normal daily load is so heavy that catching up can be done only at weekends and during recesses, but we are seeking to overcome the problem and I assure the House that we do not treat lightly these stoppages and interferences. We are seeking a permanent solution of the problem which will remove from the House the serious inconveniences that we have experienced in this respect.
I shall try to deal with most of the matters in the order in which they were raised in the debate. That is probably the fairest way, though I think that the House will not complain if I seek to deal first with one or two matters picked out by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire.
First, there is the question of the Bill that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) was seeking to introduce. That has been interfered with because of the order of business under which we have proceeded. I shall certainly look up the earlier debate that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, in which references were made to a similar matter. I assure him and the House—anyone who consults the order of business of the House will see that what I am saying is true—that what I did was exactly in accordance with the normal procedure. The business motion dealing with the recess comes before motions under Standing Order No. 13 for leave to bring in Bills.
Indeed, if I had taken the opposite course, there might have been objections from the Table Office because we should have been seeking to alter the arrangements under which the House proceeds to its business. There can be no suggestion of underhand dealing. I shall certainly look at the earlier debate to which the hon. Member for Harborough referred, but I repeat that what we have done is exactly in accordance with the previous procedures that have been applied in this respect.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire said, rightly, that one of the major matters raised in the debate was the question of the "Eleni V" and the matters


raised by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), and indicated by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). The salvers engaged by the Government are firmly of the view that the "Eleni V" cannot, after all, be firmly grounded on the site originally selected and that attempting to pump out the remaining oil on that site would carry with it a significant risk of further oil pollution, which is precisely what we all wish to avoid.
As we have engaged a leading company for this task, it is clearly right for us to attach great weight to its views. We are therefore actively investigating alternative possibilities, but we are concerned to reach a decision as quickly as we can, while still taking account of the local and environmental interests. It would be wrong to ignore these interests, even though this inevitably means that decisions take a little longer. I believe that there has been no delay in reaching decisions. The salvage work must always be carried out with due caution and the Government have tried to keep all interested parties, including local authorities, informed of developments.
The hon. Member for Yarmouth asked whether a further statement could be made before the House rises for the recess. If there is a change in the situation or a special requirement for a statement, my hon. Friend who has been dealing with these matters would be prepared to make a further statement on Friday. I do not say that as an absolute commitment to a statement, but I am sure that the hon. Member who, with others, has been in touch with the Department throughout will make his views known. We shall consider whether to make a statement on Friday and I shall take into account any representations that are made.

Mr. Fell: The right hon. Gentleman is most kind and courteous, as always. If the decision is arrived at tonight, and given to Smidt, that it is to go ahead and beach the wreck, there is no need for a statement, because the company has to get on with the job of pumping out the oil. However, if no decision is made this evening we must have a statement.

Mr. Foot: As I promised, I shall take into account the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made. If it does appear that there should be a statement, we could have one on Friday.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised wider questions with regard to this matter. I do not believe that he thought that this was the proper time to go into the general questions of pollution. Of course, they are very serious and I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members are extremely concerned about them. I have no doubt that we shall have to return to this matter when we come back after the recess.

Mr. Adley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread view in the House that the owners of the oil on these ships should be held responsible for all the financial costs which fall on both national and local government in this country?

Mr. Fell: They are.

Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend says "They are". It is quite clear that local authorities are having to bear a lot of costs for which they cannot get recompense other than from the Government. That is unsatisfactory.

Mr. Foot: Such general questions are, of course, involved. I am not seeking to dismiss them. If in replying to this debate any Leader of the House were to try to enter into all the arguments, first, his speech would never end—I am sure that even the hon. Member for Chingford wishes my speech to end some time—and, secondly, it would not be fair to other hon. Members who have raised matters and who may wish to have an answer. If every hon. Member made a further interruption after I answered his original question, I do not believe that that would be the best way to proceed. I believe that it would be to the advantage of the House generally, and to mine, if we conclude this debate by 7 o'clock. However, I shall try to answer the detailed points that have been raised.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised a number of other questions—for example, freight charges. The Secretary of State for Scotland has had representations on this subject from the right hon. Gentleman. These are under consideration, but I cannot add anything


further at present. The right hon. Gentleman also raised the extremely important question of the fishery negotiations, which affect not only his constituency but the country as a whole. The Minister has made clear the Government's intention to work, both in informal talks and at Council meetings, for a Community settlement to the common fishery programme negotiations which will be satisfactory to the United Kingdom. I think that the House recognises the way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture fights for those interests in all the negotiations that take place in Europe.
The right hon. Gentdeman also asked about sheep farmers. Discussions have taken place with the Department. The Government and the National Farmers' Union are exploring the possibility of making some provision to reduce the financial risks to farmers arising from natural disasters. Until that study is complete I cannot add anything to that aspect of the matter. However, I am sure that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will be raising further aspects of the matter when we return.
I have already referred to the first point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). With regard to the business discussed in the House yesterday, and my announcement last Thursday, I think I made clear last Thursday that the order carried further the procedure for direct elections following the passage of the European Assembly Elections Act. I do not believe that hon. Members were doubtful about the implications of what was being proposed. Certainly, sections of the Press the following day understood the implications. For example, Friday's edition of the Financial Times correctly identified the order as being concerned with the direct elections procedure. I believe that that was understood by the House as a whole.
I shall not go into all the details that my hon. Friend raised. I am not seeking to minimise their significance, but several of those points were raised in yesterday's debate. I do not believe it can be said that the presentation of the order, and the memorandum that we provided for the House, in any way misled the House. It was intended to ensure that we indicated what was going to be discussed. I know that my hon. Friend and others have strong views on the subject which they

presented in the House yesterday, and which they carried to a vote, which they were perfectly entitled to do. Those views really raise questions of principle, and that is different from any allegation that we were seeking to mislead the House about what was proposed. I do not believe that such an allegation has any foundation.

Mr. Spearing: I do not believe that there was any allegation of misleading the House. With regard to the document, the actual Community treaty was not available at the time. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that when a similar order comes before us, the treaty to which the order refers will be made available so that hon. Members will actually have the documents to which the debate is addressed?

Mr. Foot: I am not disputing the fact that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who raised that question last night had a genuine case. I accept what he says about making provision for these matters in future. There have been a few occasions when such difficulties have occurred, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall try to protect the House from a repetition of such incidents. I do not take this matter lightly. I do not wish to entice my hon. Friend to interrupt me again, but I believe that that matter is separate from some of the suggestions that he made earlier.
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and others referred to the broadcasting of the House and asked how the experiment was working. I am not surprised that some hon. Members who hold strongly to the view that broadcasting should never have taken place now seek to illustrate how infallible is their wisdom. That is often the characteristic of Members of the House of Commons. It would take something to shift them from their opinions.
I am not at all surprised that there are still varied views on the question whether the experiment was successful. However, I entirely agree that a considerably longer period must be allowed before a proper judgment can be applied. I also agree that there must be a period when the House of Commons must take into


account the representations that may come from hon. Members and others about the way in which the experiment is working—

Mr. Spearing: It is not an experiment.

Mr. Foot: —the way in which the proposition is working. Again, I do not want to entice my hon. Friend to his feet. I know how difficult it is to drag him to his feet, but I do not want to encourage him to do so again on any question of semantics about whether this is an experiment, proposition or an operation that is likely to be permanent. Personally, I believe that the broadcasting of the House will be as permanent as the reporting of the House.
I must emphasise that the reporting of the House is not always regarded as being immaculately perfect by all newspapers. Even so, I believe that no one in the House would suggest returning to the extraordinary proposition of the eighteenth century, that we should not be reported at all because often we are reported so shamefully or so shockingly.
I believe that the House of Commons and the country will get used to the process of broadcasting, and I say to the hon. Member for Harborough that when he comes forward with his further proposition, some day, I shall hope to be in the Division Lobby supporting him, because I hope that the House of Commons will move in that direction. However, these are future battles, and I have enough on my plate with present ones without turning to them.
The hon. Member for Chingford asked me to draw the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government to the matters which he raised. I acknowledge that they are matters which are proper to be raised in this House and ones which naturally cause concern to him and to his constituents about the treatment of commuters and what can be done to assist them. I shall not go into the details, but the hon. Member is very skilful in ensuring that matters are raised in this House. The idea that he is prevented from raising such matters by some recondite rules of the House of Commons and that he is so bashful that he is not able to find his way round them is not the experience of the rest of us. Therefore, I believe that he will continue to be

able to draw these matters to the attention of the Ministers and of the nationalised industries concerned.
I do not think that the hon. Member was asking me for a more specific reply on that matter. However, he went on to ask me to comment upon some remarks made by the general secretary of a very respectable and well organised trade union. Certainly I should not like to respond to the hon. Member in any such exchanges of that nature. I believe that he must fight out his battles on these matters in other places. I do not think that it falls to me to make a pronouncement on them.

Mr. Tebbit: Surely the Lord President will not say, as a man who has been Secretary of State for Employment and who is a distinguished trade unionist himself, that it is tolerable that trade union leaders should seek to prevent their members speaking to members of one political party. I do not think that he can sit there and say nothing about it.

Mr. Foot: I am not sitting here. I am trying to stand up and say as much as I can.

Mr. Tebbit: He cannot stand there and say nothing, then.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Member may think that I am prejudiced, but if I am to comment on a statement by the general secretary of a very distinguished trade union, I should much prefer to read the words that he used and the circumstances in which they were used in order to be able to judge the matter carefully than to be rushed by the hon. Member for Chingford into making an ill-advised statement. The more the hon. Member tries to entice me to make a foolish remark, the less likely I am to do so. I do not think that the hon. Member will get very far by such methods.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) asked some general questions about time and debates. I understand the motive behind his invitation to us to return on the Monday in order to debate some of these subjects. Hon. Members in other parts of the House may complain that we are coming back at all during that week. In fact we have a shorter Whitsun Recess than sometimes has been the case. So to some extent I have responded in anticipation of my hon.
Friend's request, and some of the debates that we shall be having during that week are taking place precisely because I understood, by telepathic means, the kind of case that my hon. Friends and others would make. That is one of the reasons why, when I announce tomorrow the debates that are to be held during the week when we return, I believe the House will see that we are responding to the appeals from both sides for a foreign affairs debate, for example.
References have been made to many foreign affairs matters. There was, for instance, the one referred to by the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle). I dare say that all those matters can be dealt with better in a foreign affairs debate than they can be in reply to this debate on the motion for the Adjournment. As for matters such as relations between China and Russia, the supply of arms to China and the precise position of any application for the supply of specific forms of exports to China, I think that it is much better for any discussion to take place in a more general debate than this one.

Sir Anthony Royle: rose—

Mr. Foot: I must not give way to the hon. Member. As I said at the beginning, I hope very much that we can reach the end of this debate by 7 o'clock. If I give way to every hon. Member who has already made a speech I shall not be able to complete the few remarks that I wish to make.
The hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey referred to two more particular matters, one of them concerning the South Circular Road. On the face of it, some of these matters appear to be for the Greater London Council, as highway authority, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will listen sympathetically to any matters which may be within his responsibilities, and I have nothing further to say to the hon. Member on that subject immediately.
The hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey and his right hon. Friend the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire asked about the Post Office engineering dispute. I have nothing to say about the dispute, although I fully acknowledge the circumstances which have been mentioned and the difficulties to which they give rise.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has been kept fully informed of the developments in this dispute both by the union's leaders and by the Post Office chairman, who are all keenly aware of the effects which the dispute is having on Post Office customers generally. I am sure that we all appreciate that highly sensitive industrial relations of this kind cannot necessarily be dealt with in a reply from the Dispatch Box now. I can assure the hon. Member and the right hon. Member that we shall take account of those matters and that we recognise their immediate importance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) and other hon. Members raised the possibility of a more general review of regional development status. That is an extremely important and far-reaching question, though it is one which affects not only the regions concerned but other parts of the country. I assure my hon. Friends that when we return after the recess my right hon. and hon. Friends will be giving consideration to these matters. I have indicated already that we should have the debate on regional policy, in some form, and I believe that that would be the occasion to discuss these matters. I cannot give an absolute commitment at the moment, but obviously this matter is a strong candidate for debate.
The pay and conditions of work of Members of Parliament are matters to which we shall return when we come back. There is no doubt that under our normal provisions there would be a debate some time in June, because that is the date under the 12-month rule for the pay increase for Members of Parliament, on the same conditions as those which apply to other people throughout the country. I think, therefore, that that will be the best time to deal with the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince.
Other hon. Members raised some more general matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) rightly referred to the scandalous attacks which have been made in some quarters, and which I am sorry to say were reiterated today by the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), upon the President of the United States and upon the attempts of the United States Government to assist in many parts of the world to overcome


some of the difficulties that other hon. Members have described.
The Government believe that it is a very wise policy, especially in these circumstances, to sustain the very best possible relations that we can with the Government of the United States in dealing with these problems in the case of Rhodesia, Africa, China and the Soviet Union. We think that some highly irresponsible remarks have been made by the Opposition and that it is a pity that they have not long since been repudiated by the Leader of the Conservative Party. However, we have not time to deal with all those matters tonight as we would wish.
The hon. Member for Harborough asked again that we should introduce immediately the Bill that he wanted. I have already discussed this matter.
I hope that the House will accept the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Friday do adjourn till Tuesday 6th June.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

As amended, considered.

Clause 8

LOANS FOR ERECTION OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS ETC.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 7, line 35, leave out Clause 8.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 2, in page 10, line 14, leave out Clause 11.
No. 3, in page 10, line 39, leave out Clause 12.
No. 4, in page 13, line 33, leave out Clause 13.

Mr. Beith: It is not my intention in moving this group of amendments to delay the main body of the Bill. This Bill has a very long history. It has been with us for two years. It has benefited from the procedure by which Private Bills can carry over from one Session to another and it has become rather long in the tooth. It contains a variety of provisions to which none of us could take exception and many which, happily, other parts of the country do not need.
It contains clauses, for example, designed to license entertainment by way of posing—provisions which I am glad to say are not normally felt to be necessary in my part of the country. For example, it says that the licences are those
used for public entertainment consisting wholly or partly of human posing, shall be deemed for the purposes …
and so on. I am glad to say we do not need those powers. The Bill includes many important minor matters that the GLC must bring forward—matters such as admission charges to Kenwood House, the closing of parks on Sundays, the fines for non-return of library books and all the general detailed matters which are the stock-in-trade of the Private Bills that come to us at regular intervals from the GLC.
It is not these features which have given rise to concern, but those which are concerned with substantial additions to the powers of the GLC itself and of certain London boroughs in respect of industrial policy. These powers and the proposal to acquire them have aroused genuine concern in many parts of the country, not least in my own constituency and in the area of the North of England Development Council which has had a number of comments to make about them.
It is apparent to everyone, from whatever part of the country he comes, that there are parts of London with very serious problems. These problems are particularly concerned with regeneration. One cannot look at London's dockland, for example, without recognising that here is a major problem to be tackled. Also within other parts of London there is massive prosperity on a scale which is quite unknown in the more generally depressed regions of the country. However, none of us would want to under-estimate the scale of difficulty in some inner London areas.
It would be quite wrong to deny to the authorities in some form—central or local—the means that are needed to tackle these problems. The argument that we must consider is whether these particular provisions should be given to the London boroughs and to the GLC in order to tackle the problems.
Two years ago when this Bill first came before us, the Government's policy on inner urban areas was much less clear than it is today. The Government's attitude to the regions such as the North and the West was much clearer. At that time their inner urban policy was still being developed. Since this Bill has come before us the Inner Urban Areas Bill has been through its stages and is about to become law. It has changed the situation considerably. We must now see this Bill against the background of the Inner Urban Areas Bill and the various powers and special procedures which that establishes.
Parts of London which are thought to merit special attention in the Inner Urban Areas are not in this Bill tonight—for example, Islington and Hackney, which are partnership areas under the Government's proposals.
There are other conurbations waiting in the wings with their own proposals and ideas about powers that they could have. We could finish up with a confused pattern of powers, and even worse we could risk destroying any kind of order of priorities in ways of tackling the problems facing different parts of the country. We could end up with nothing more than a levelling-up process in which each part of the country in turn followed on with new proposals for power. At the end of the day as a result there would be no attempt to use incentives of any kind to steer industries in particular directions because any attempt at incentives would be wholly cancelled out.
The day may come when we have a Government who might go along with that and say that it should be the policy. In that case, why should a variety of local authorities engage in a competitive bidding process, spending their ratepayers' money in order to bring it about? We might as well scrap the whole idea of industrial incentives if the end product is a lot of authorities following suit and increasing their powers in a levelling-up process.
We might even get a process of continued competition in which we have something of an auction. In such a case one authority after another would keep trying to go that bit further than another authority had gone in order to bid up the stakes and opportunities and attract industry in that way. Neither prospect seems encouraging for any kind of sensible regional policy, least of all one which is designed to benefit the inner areas of London.
To give these powers could have that effect on our regional policy at a time when the traditional assisted areas are feeling, particularly with the removal of the employment premium, that they are in a rather weak position.
The North of England Development Council published a lengthy report recently in which it had some very relevant comments. It said:
There are good grounds for the regions to ally themselves wherever possible with the Inner Cities. The study by the South East Strategy Team on job loss in London between 1966 and 1974 shows that 73% was due to the closure of plants (there is traditionally a high death and low birth rate for firms in Inner Cities) and reduction of employment in those that remained. Only 9% was attributable to moves to the Assisted Areas. The remainder


18% was lost to the non-Assisted Areas of which 7% was to the new or expanding towns. Thus London lost twice as many jobs to the "prosperous" regions as it did to the Assisted Areas. Conventional regional policy has therefore not been a major factor in employment decline of the Inner Cities outside the Assisted Areas.
Some people in London feel, when they see advertisements designed to attract firms to areas like the North, that it is at London's expense that this promotion has taken place. Experience shows that it has been to the contrary. Firms are anxious to move out of London to non-assisted areas but the real decline within inner London has not been the result of regional policy.
Indeed, the NEDC argues that both the regions and the inner cities have a real interest in a proper industrial development certificate policy adjusted to meet the needs of assisted areas and of the pockets of serious problems in Inner London. The NEDC went on to say how concerned it was about this Bill and the powers that it gives. It says:
The Bill, if it becomes law will give to ten named Boroughs powers greater than those exercised by any other conurbation, and even those laid down in the Inner Urban Areas Bill. We are concerned about the implications for the Regions and regional policy. Regional policy was about diverting resources from certain areas of the United Kingdom to others so that there would be more balanced industrial growth without overheating of the economy etc. To give London the Power to build advance factories, at present confined to the Assisted Areas, to make 50 per cent. grants towards plant and machinery, while even Special Development Areas are restricted to 22 per cent.; and to promote their area at home and abroad when it is the 'natural' centre anyway, could have grave repercussions on regional policy. Priorities will have been changed and the advantages that regional policy sought to give to the Assisted Areas will largely have been removed.
I disagree with the NEDC on one aspect of that. I see no reason why London should not have the right to canvass and advertise its merits like any other area and it would be wrong to seek to deprive it of that. What we are really talking about are the major financial incentives in the Bill. Concern about those remains very real indeed. There can be no doubt about the continued need for selective regional policies designed to deal with areas which face serious difficulty, and that need has been underlined in recent OECD reports which say, for example,

Regional problems will not solve themselves, or disappear, as a result of regionally indifferentiated national policies of economic growth which can accentuate, as well as alleviate, unacceptable regional disparities.
I hesitate to wonder from what language that was translated. However, its meaning, if fairly distilled, is that any sort of general economic policy that brings a measure of success to the country as a whole could leave some regions out in the cold.
London has every reason to realise that. Even in period of general prosperity in London some of the areas with which the Bill is concerned have faced increasing difficulty. At a time when organisations such as the North-East Development Council, the North-West Industrial Development Association and the Yorkshire and Humberside Development Agency are getting increasingly concerned about how they can attract industry to their areas, we must consider carefully the powers proposed in the Bill.
The Government have expressed considerable reservations about Clauses 8 and 13. Indeed, they expressed almost outright opposition when they were considered. Clause 8 extends the powers granted to local authorities in the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963. It gives them powers to advance 90 per cent. of the security on an industrial building. The Secretary of State for the Environment took the view that he needed to have, in effect, a veto power over the exercise of that provision. I am not quite sure what happened because the power of authority needed from the Secretary of State has not found its way into the Bill as it appears before us. No doubt individual Ministers who are concerned with these matters will go into the history of that aspect when they contribute to the debate.
In the same group of clauses are wide-ranging powers that in some ways duplicate the powers contained within the Inner Urban Areas Bill. They would seem to set in an odd light the partnership programme and the designated areas pattern that the Government laid down in the Inner Urban Areas Bill. Some of the things that could be done by this measure could be done under existing legislation—for example, under the Local Government Act 1972.
We are bound to question whether expansion on this scale is justified. It is


in Clause 12 that perhaps the most dramatic power occurs. The clause gives the 10 specified boroughs the ability to make 50 per cent. grants towards the cost of plant and machinery, grants of £1,000 for each job created in enterprises employing fewer than 100 persons. At some stage I hope that the Minister will clarify whether it is 100 persons in a particular plant or 100 persons in the firm as a whole. It may be that the promoters of the Bill will be able to give us some advice.
That sort of assistance is well above the level that may be offered even in special development areas, where only a 22 per cent. grant towards plant and machinery may be given. The Bill appears against the background that the small firms' employment subsidy is being extended to include the inner city partnership areas.
The Secretary of State for Industry already has powers under Section 8 of the Industry Act 1972 to give financial assistance to certain projects. It is notable that the clause does not contain the cut-off of the mysterious year of 1984 that is included in two of the other clauses in the group. One of the rather intriguing provisions is that of indexation, which is a rather unusual feature in a Private Bill. In page 12, line 21 we see that the financial limits set in the Bill are to be increased according to the increase of retail prices, and increased steadily as a result of inflation. I do not know whether that will become general practice in Private Bills of this sort, but it is a device that we should consider with some care.
At a later stage we shall discuss a clause that it is right to discuss separately. I understand from the information that I have received that it is linked to a loan project involving the possibility of foreign capital being brought into London. It would be fruitful to discuss the clause separately and to hear the views of the promoters. However, we must first consider why it is necessary for a group of boroughs in inner London so to have their present powers enhanced that they cast doubt upon the viability of existing powers available in other areas.
7.15 p.m.
We must know from the Government how they would view the continuation of such a pattern as one authority after another felt obliged substantially to

increase its powers so to compete with the incentives available in inner London. It would not be right for us to allow the clauses to remain in the Bill against such doubt. I am reinforced in that view by the strength with which Ministers who know London well have expressed reservations throughout the course of these proceedings. At every stage in Committee strong Government reservations were expressed. The Secretary of State for the Environment has said of the guarantee clauses:
Quite frankly I believe the Government is better able to assess this than local authorities.
The right hon. Gentleman said that at a Labour Party news conference during the London borough elections. It did not seem to go down too badly.
The extent of the reservations expressed throughout by Ministers must lead us to realise that there are national policy issues at stake. It is the Government's job to assess how far regions that are relatively better off as a whole may use their resources to build in incentives for the authorities within their areas above those that poorer regions can afford.
There are areas in the pockets of central London that have unemployment rates approaching the worst in the North-East, but I do not think that there is an area in London that equals Sunderland's unemployment figures, for example. Even the high rates of unemployment in some of the boroughs of central London are in areas where there are adjacent districts that have lower rates of unemployment. In a region such as the North—if I refer to it a great deal, I hope that I shall be forgiven as it is the area that I know best—we find that there is an area of high unemployment but no area next door with half that level of unemployment offering a greater chance of getting a job. The whole pattern of the region is one of high unemployment.

Mr. Fred Evans: If there are areas with high unemployment rates adjacent to areas with low unemployment rates, there is a failure on the part of areas with low unemployment rates to absorb any of the unemployment in the areas with heavy unemployment. If that is so in the hon. Gentleman's region, what is the essential difference between what he is talking about in the North-East and that which I could talk about in South


Wales from the pattern that is contained in the Bill?

Mr. Beith: The pattern that I am describing is that in areas of London pockets of high and low unemployment exist almost side by side. In the North-East there is a general high rate of unemployment. There are some extremely high peaks, but there is general high unemployment. One would have to go a long way in the North-East before coming upon an area in which an unemployed man from Sunderland could find a rate of unemployment low enough to improve his chances of getting a job. He would find it extremely difficult to come across such an area. I accept that that is small consolation for those living in the worst-off boroughs of London, but it indicates the dangers of a competition policy for regional aid.
That fear leads me to be most concerned to hear what the promoters have to say in justification of this method of proceeding. I am anxious to hear the Government's view of how that which is proposed in the Bill can be squared with national regional policy.

Mr. Robert Mellish: It seems that we are living in an Alice-in-Wonderland world. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, the Bill has been kicking around for quite a long time. At one stage Labour Members voted for certain parts of the Bill whereas tonight Labour Members such as myself will vote against it. At an earlier stage Tory Members voted against the Bill, but I gather that some Tory Members will now vote for it. Do not let us have any pious humbug from the Opposition Front Bench before we start.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: rose—

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman constantly talks humbug so I do not have to refer to him separately.
It is an extraordinary Bill. The Alice-in-Wonderland feature is incredible. From my point of view a number of important events have taken place since we last debated these matters. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has introduced the Inner Urban Areas Bill and taken various personal actions to assist the inner London boroughs with which I am concerned. I

say to all my hon. Friends—I cannot expect support from the Opposition—that no Minister has done more for inner London boroughs than my right hon. Friend. The grants, the help and the attitudes have all been in their favour. The idea seems to be that, because one or two clauses in this Bill are a little more favourable than the Inner Urban Areas Bill, we should all dash and vote with the Opposition who not so long ago voted the other way round. I shall not be a party to it. I shall not have any of that nonsense.
Southwark is one of the boroughs which petitioned. Therefore, it might be thought that, being a local lad and wanting to defend my local authority, I should dash to support it because it was one of the petitioners. I have already written to my town clerk and told him that he will not get my support. I have told him why, and I am sure that he has passed on my reasons to every chairman.
On the Clause 8 argument, it is true that as now proposed—50 per cent. grants for plant and machinery—that provision is better than the provision in the Inner Urban Areas Bill. But that is restricted. Hackney and Islington are excluded under the GLC set-up. What authority has the GLC to do that? Are Hackney and Islington so much better off than the borough of Southwark? My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) may be very surprised to hear me say that. I think that their needs are equal. It is wrong in principle to exclude those boroughs.
I believe that much of what is in the Bill has been overlapped by the Inner Urban Areas Bill. There is no doubt that my right hon. Friend's Bill is a far better vehicle for what I want done for London than the Bill before us. The argument appears to be that the GLC Bill will give more power to Southwark, for example, to deal with London's dockland area.
I said that we lived in an Alice-in-Wonderland world. I do not know what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed is doing mucking about with a London Bill. However, as a Londoner, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that London has suffered a great deal down the years. We have had this argument before and it is worth repeating. No one


played a greater part than I did in hurting London. I have always admitted that in the past. Indeed, Tory Ministers who preceded and who came after me followed the same attitude as I had adopted. We were advised that London was over-populated and that it had more jobs than it needed. We were advised that London must share, and that is what London did. It sent thousands of people and jobs out of its territory at great sacrifice.
What has happened? This is the important point, and this is where my right hon. Friend's personal action comes in. We in London have said "Halt. Enough is enough." I said that in another context some time ago and was called all kinds of things.
Of course, I come at once to the defence of my London colleagues and my borough. Does anyone suggest that this Bill will provide dockland with more money than it would get under the Inner Urban Areas Bill? Stuff and nonsense. It is absolute rubbish.
The idea has been promoted that Trammell Crow, a great American firm, is interested in part of dockland. I do not know. I have never been to Texas. I should enjoy the trip. However, I gather that Trammell Crow is a great firm which wants to come to my part of dockland—Surrey Docks—and to develop in a very big way. There is talk of several thousand jobs. I shall watch with interest and shall be delighted if those jobs are created.
Trammell Crow will get all the help that it needs, if it justifies its case—it must do that, whatever Bill is before us—under Section 8 of the Industry Act. There is no argument here that somehow the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill will give powers which are not available in the Inner Urban Areas Bill.
It is against that background that I come here tonight. I say to my right hon. Friend in a friendly way that his trouble is that he is his own worst Press relations officer. If I had his job, I should be on television night after night telling every Londoner how good I was and what I was doing for London. My right hon. Friend has not got what I call the political flair to go out and say what is going on for London. Perhaps he needs a good PRO. Indeed, I might even

take on the job. But it has to be said that no Minister has done more for inner London boroughs than my right hon. Friend. I say that in short and simple terms.
I shall support the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, except one about which I am very concerned. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say something on this matter. I have not discussed this aspect with him. However, I hope that Londoners will be allowed to publicise. I hope that there will be no restriction on publicity. Let them put up placards and have a competition about which borough has the best to offer. Let us see whether Hackney is a better place to go to than Southwark. I am all for that. That is the kind of competition to which I have been looking forward for years.
I shall not support what I think is better covered in the Inner Urban Areas Bill. I shall support the Liberal amendments. I said that this was an Alice-in-Wonderland world. Whoever heard of me supporting Liberals? They really are a shower. One has only to think about it. However, I shall support the Liberal amendments for the reasons that I have given.

Mr. Michael Alison: As a representative of a Yorkshire constituency, I hope that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who has my brother-in-law living in his constituency and I think voting for him, will not take me to task for sounding a Yorkshire voice from the Back Benches in this London debate.
I intervene for two reasons. I have two different county authorities within my constituency—an unusually large constituency—half in West Yorkshire and half in North Yorkshire. That fact epitomises one of the problems that the Bill will create for the Government.
I do not support the amendments, nor shall I vote in favour of them. However, I hope that the Government will be able to reassure other authorities besides those which are likely to benefit from the powers taken in the Bill.
The West Yorkshire County Council Bill, which has just completed its Committee stage in the House of Lords, is almost identical in its industry provisions


to this Bill. Therefore, in my West Yorkshire County Council capacity I have a vested interest in the progress of this Bill. But that does not alter the fact that there will be an increasing number of anomalies and disparities in the powers and provisions available for different local authorities in different parts of the country as a result of the effects of the Inner Urban Areas Bill and of the provisions which may be made available to the West Yorkshire County Council and to the Greater London Council.
Briefly, I should like to spell out some of the differences in the symmetry of powers available to some local authorities. Clause 8 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill provides for loans for the acquisition of land and for works on land up to 90 per cent. Clause 2 of the Inner Urban Areas Bill gives precisely parallel powers.
Section 12(1) of the County of South Glamorgan Act 1976 gives powers up to 90 per cent.—exactly the same as Clause 2 of the Inner Urban Areas Bill. The West Yorkshire County Council Bill seeks similar powers. Now we have the same powers being sought by the GLC in this Bill.
It does not make sense that a limitation as to eligibility should be applied in the Inner Urban Areas Bill to this level of grant for the acquisition of land and works on land and that it should not be possible for other local auhtorities—for example, the North Yorkshire County Council—to qualify for these powers up to 90 per cent. until their existing general powers Acts give out and they have to come to the House to get them renewed and presumably seek and get the same powers as London.
7.30 p.m.
There is an anomaly. If it is the Government's policy to encourage various local authorities to secure specific powers similar to those provided in either the County of South Glamorgan (General Powers) Act or the Inner Urban Areas Bill, they must put those authorities which are not to have those powers out of their misery and tell them that they will be included by designation in the relevant section of the Inner Urban Areas Bill. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
I hope that he will be able to assure us that North Yorkshire, for example, which is adjacent to West Yorkshire, automatically will be given the rights of 90 per cent. loan facilities as provided in Clause 2 of the Inner Urban Areas Bill if the Government are not to prevent the GLC from taking those powers in its Private Bill. We must have symmetry for local authorities. It is unsatisfactory that the matter should be entirely random and that one must bring forward a Private Bill to secure those powers.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) described Clause 12 as the heart of the Bill. This deals with special powers for industry. The Inner Urban Areas Bill is fairly specific in Clause 3 which gives extensive powers to make grants with a natural limit or a percentage limit. That Bill explicitly excludes the possibility of plant and machinery being eligible for grant or loan, but the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill seeks that power. That is a power which it should have. In the Inner Urban Areas Bill we tried to include plant and machinery so that it would be eligible for grant or loans as well as works on land. The Government turned down our amendment.
In Clause 12 the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill provides that plant and machinery shall qualify for those special levels of grant or loan. It will be paradoxical if some of the partnership areas in London, specified as the beneficiaries under the inner Urban Areas Bill, cannot get grants for plant and machinery because the Minister deliberately refuses to allow them to have it in the Inner Urban Areas Bill. However, they will be allowed to have such grants under this Bill. That is an anomaly, contradiction and imbalance which the Government should put right.
If the Government are to allow the London boroughs to have power to make grants for plant and machinery they must extend that power and include it in Clause 3 of the Inner Urban Areas Bill. That would introduce symmetry into these provisions.
There is a precedent for these powers. In the Inner Urban Areas Bill the Minister limits the authorities that can benefit from the provisions in that Bill. But the Tyne and Wear (General Powers) Act


makes it possible for all the powers specified in Clause 3 of the Inner Urban Areas Bill to be made available in Tyne and Wear on an improved basis. In that Act there is no Ministerial veto on the provision in the Tyne and Wear area. No ceiling is put on the level of grant. That is another anomaly between what is available in the Inner Urban Areas Bill, what will be provided in the general powers Bill for London and what is available to the general run of local authorities.
Clause 13 deals with the guarantee of rent for industrial buildings. This is another anomaly. Clause 6 of the Inner Urban Areas Bill provides for grants to be made towards the rents of industrial buildings. The Tyne and Wear Act already provides this power for that area. It is now to be provided in this Bill and it will probably be provided in the Bill proposed by the West Yorkshire County Council. A selective range of local authorities which introduce private Bills will have those powers, but authorities covered by the Inner Urban Areas Bill are restricted.
It is necessary for the Government to indicate whether they approve of features such as grants towards plant and machinery, 90 per cent. loans and guarantees for rents on industrial buildings. Do the Government approve of those provisions in principle? If they do approve they must make those powers available to local authorities generally under the Inner Urban Areas Bill.
There is no point in having a restrictive Bill which limits those powers in the partnership or programme areas—which is where the Minister draws the line in the Inner Urban Areas Bill—but which gives a green light to those authorities which bring forward Private Bills.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I am in sympathy with the argument. I sympathise with the London problem. The House generally has a sympathetic attitude towards London. Would not the wider proposition which could be followed by other authorities negate the efforts made in the Inner Urban Areas Bill to solve the problems of those areas which have particular difficulties and which require specific solutions? If the powers under the Bill were extended to other conurbations and local authorities, would it not destroy the whole concept

of the redistribution of industry and jobs throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Member has pinpointed the apparent anomaly and the inherent contradiction in the Government's position. We need illumination. The idea of the Inner Urban Areas Bill was to provide a range of special opportunities and provisions for a limited selected group of authorities with particular problems. So far so good.
But an elaboration and improvement of the provisions in the Inner Urban Areas Bill is before the House in a Private Bill and the Government have said that they will not oppose those provisions and will encourage them. The Minister might be giving the Bill his blessing. We do not know. If that is the case the Government are saying to local authorities "Bring forward general powers Bills and help yourself to the same extent." If that is so, what is the Government's position on the attempt to limit these facilities?
North Yorkshire will be discriminated against in respect of both the Inner Urban Areas Bill and the powers which apparently are to be made available to West Yorkshire.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) asked for a little illumination, and I hope that I can give him some. I think this may be the right moment for me to intervene in the debate. Before I attempt to "illuminate" the hon. Gentleman perhaps I may say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, how grateful we are for the remarks by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who is temporarily absent. It is true that significant changes have taken place since the Bill was last considered on Second Reading.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that the Bill had been hanging around for some time. It has, and a lot has happened in that time. The first thing that happened was that the Department produced its White Paper on Inner city policy which foreshadowed the legislation which passed through this House and is now being considered in another place. However, it is important for the House to recognise that since the Inner Urban Areas Bill was introduced,


and during its passage, it has been improved and significantly strengthened.
Let me explain what those changes were. They are important and in some respects they bear very much upon the sort of powers that are being sought in this Bill.
First, it was decided on Report to widen the Bill so that grants in industrial improvement areas and rent grants in partnership areas could be made in respect of commercial as well as industrial buildings.
Secondly, it was decided to introduce building grants in industrial improvement areas for the preservation as well as the creation of jobs, which is a matter of considerable concern to many who represent London constituencies.
Thirdly, a new power in partnership areas was incorporated in the Bill to give interest relief grants to small firms on loans for land or buildings. Lastly, there was the extension of interest-free loans in partnership areas to cover the installation of service and access roads.
The areas to be designated under the Bill for the receipt of the new powers will include a considerable part of inner London. The partnership districts will include Hackney, Islington, Lambeth, Greenwich, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark and Tower Hamlets. The programme authorities will include Hammersmith, the one programme district in the Greater London area, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced his intention to designate the districts of Brent, Ealing, Haringey and Wandsworth.
These decisions were made on the basis of a clearly thought-out appreciation of the measure of problems faced by individual London boroughs. I submit that it is possible for decisions of this kind to be made only by the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] One of the difficulties that arise when private legislation of this kind comes forward, however well-considered it is by the Select Committee, is that the Committee cannot, by the very nature of things, take into account the whole range of problems that may exist. It so happens that 10 boroughs petitioned the House. My hon. Friend who sat on the Select Committee was able to listen to the skilfully presented evidence of those

boroughs. But the Committee was unable to consider the problems of Hackney and Islington, authorities that have been designated by my right hon. Friend as partnership authorities but which are excluded from the powers suggested for the specified authorities under the Bill.

Mr. Fred Evans: Is my hon. Friend not aware that the Select Committee received documentary evidence from the Department of the Environment, the Department of Employment and the Departments of Trade and Industry. In addition to the documentary evidence there was personal evidence from leading civil servants who were there to be cross-examined. The point that my hon. Friend is now making was not brought out by any of them.

Mr. Barnett: I am aware of the care with which my hon. Friend and other members of the Committee considered the evidence that was put before them. They did not, however, consider whether Hackney and Islington might enjoy the sort of powers that were being sought by the petitioning boroughs. That is a problem. We have to examine the Bill in that sense.
It is the Department's view that any fair assessment of the relative problems of the boroughs of London—problems which vary very widely, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed rightly pointed out—must be made, so far as it can be, on the basis of an objective study of criteria of social need. That is what we attempted to do. It could be said that we made the wrong choices, but at least we tried to examine the situation in London and in inner urban areas elsewhere in the country to secure a proper ordering of priorities for dealing with urban problems.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: How can a Private Bill Committee consider arguments that are not put by boroughs that do not petition? The Committee was dealing with petitioners and arguments on the other side. How could the factors that the Minister has mentioned have been brought to the Committee, except by those boroughs exercising their right to petition?

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) has made


my point; they cannot. That is precisely why the only way in which there can be a fair and proper assessment where needs lie, and what special powers need to be provided, is through public legislation, in which we consider these matters on the basis of objective criteria and not on the basis of petitions that may come from specific boroughs which have every right to petition the House.

Mr. Eric Ogden: There is no joy in making things more difficult, but why cannot the Government assume that if no one has objected there are no objections to make? Surely there are more than enough ways to make objections known, through the procedure of inquiries and petitions. Surely if an authority in London has not objected it must mean that it has no objections to make. Why cannot local ratepayers, through their elected councillors and county councillors, be allowed to spend their money to aid industry in their areas? If Berwick-upon-Tweed wants to do that, let it bring in a Bill to provide for that. If Merseyside wants it—and by God, we need it—let it do the same, no matter who controls the council.

Mr. Barnett: No one objects to a local authority's doing what is provided for within the law. This legislation provides extra powers for certain local authorities. The Inner Urban Areas Bill similarly allows certain local authorities to exercise powers which are not available to other local authorities. The philosophy behind that Bill is to provide extra powers to the local authorities with the greatest needs.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash provoked me to speak at this point because he expressed proper anxiety about the relationship between private legislation in general and public legislation of the Inner Urban Areas Bill type. It is with that point that I now want to deal. It is important for the House to understand the Government's position on the matter.
Between 1963 and 1973 a number of authorities in different parts of the country sought and obtained in Private Acts varying powers additional to those of the 1963 Act. No authorities in Greater London, however, obtained such powers. Section 262 of the Local Government

Act 1972 provides that all local authority Private Act powers outside Greater London will, unless renewed, lapse in December 1979 in metropolitan areas, or December 1984 in non-metropolitan areas.
In the Government's view the present miscellany of supplementary powers could not be defended coherently on the basis of relative need of the areas concerned. The areas include development and special development areas, intermediate areas as well as areas without any assisted area status. We think that advantage should be taken of the "clean sweep" provided by Section 262 of the Local Government Act to start again, and that any powers for local authorities in this field should be taken coherently—though not necessarily uniformly—in general legislation.
The Inner Urban Areas Bill is the first such piece of general legislation, but it need not be the last. Thus, while the Government have been willing for authorities to retain until 1984—and even in minor respects to rationalise—such Private Act powers as their predecessor authorities possessed, they do not consider that this practice should be renewed by enacting further Private Act provisions in this field.
That is the point of principle, and I hope what I have said will go some way to reassure the hon. Gentleman on the points that he raised about West Yorkshire.

Mr. Loyden: Is it not the case that no matter whether action is taken by central Government to accommodate the problems in the regions or whether it is an act by local authorities, both have relevance to the economic situation. Therefore, the actions of the Government will be nullified by the actions of local authorities if those actions are in contradiction to the general philosophy and approach of the Government to the problems of the regions.

Mr. Barnett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. If local authorities were allowed to obtain powers of sufficient effectiveness, it would be possible to vitiate the powers on regional policy. That is a matter to which we must have regard. But it is our view that the sort of powers proposed in the Inner Urban Areas Bill will not do that, because they


are concerned much more with the need to preserve and retain jobs in the inner city areas in London and in other parts of the country and in other districts which will be designated under the Bill.

Mr. Loyden: Out of the total economy?

Mr. Barnett: Yes. I do not see any necessary conflict between the Government's regional policy and the action by individual local authorities to assist industry, provided that there is some limitation on the powers possessed by local authorities.

Mr. Alison: The Minister has been helpful in trying to cover some of the points that I have made. Will he illuminate the narrow point in respect of grants for plant and machinery? If this Bill goes through, there will be within the partnership authorities first and second class citizens. First, there will be the partnership authorities which are within the ambit of the GLC Bill—namely, the dockland and metropolitan boroughs, and they will be able to make grants for plant and machinery. The partnership areas in Liverpool, Manchester, Salford, Birmingham, Newcastle and Gateshead will not be within that provision because the relevant clause of the Inner Urban Areas Bill specifically disallows grants for plant and machinery. Will this anomaly be put right in the other place?

Mr. Barnett: For the reasons that I have been giving in my speech, I cannot recommend the House to accept the provisions that are now before us, and I recommend the House to support the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
I was about to say that the greatest danger that faces us if we do not take this action is that which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, namely, that we shall find local authorities leapfrogging one another in search of more powers to enable them to attract more industry. I believe that to be a real danger in view of some of the Private Bills that are now on their way to this House.
For these reasons, our general recommendation is to resist legislation of this kind, which can only create the kind of

anomalies about which many hon. Members are concerned. The only solution to these problems is to have general legislation to provide a proper order of priorities between different local authorities.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will the Minister clear up one point? He has listed the boroughs that will be helped in the Inner Urban Areas Bill—namely, those in partnership or designated areas. There was one notable omission—the London borough of Camden. How will that borough retain its jobs when it has been excluded deliberately from the Inner Urban Areas Bill yet would have an opportunity, under the General Powers Bill, to be given some help?

Mr. Barnett: The London borough of Camden is excluded from the list of designated authorities, as were a great many other of the 32 London boroughs excluded from the list of designated authorities, because its problems were thought by Government not to be of sufficiently great a nature to demand extra powers.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that local authorities in general for some time have had powers enabling them to assist industry in their areas. I draw his attention to the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963. That legislation has enabled many local authorities in the past, without the benefit of private legislation, to give considerable help to industry in their own areas. As a consequence of this legislation, the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that Camden would not gain as a consequence of the Inner Urban Areas Bill at present because it is not one of the authorities which it is proposed to designate. That decision is taken on the basis of objective criteria to ensure that assistance goes to those boroughs in which the need is greatest.
For these reasons, we believe that it would be wrong to accept the Select Committee's decision. Accordingly, I ask the House to support the amendments.

Mr. John Moore: I wish to make a few general observations. I accept the implied general criticism of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). I think that we all need chiding in terms of the previous time at


which this legislation was introduced. I accept that criticism, but I shall try to speak from a pragmatic point of view.
I find this an almost perverse and a peculiar debate. I have been trying to work out the problem, but it appears that we are in the midst of one of those classic debates involving tidy government. A local authority appears to be saying one of two things. The first is that it has proposed some rather successful methods. It takes the view that those methods are so successful that they cannot be adopted because they will be an astonishing magnet which will draw funds, jobs and activities away from other areas that need them more, according to the decisions of the Government.

Mr. Fred Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Inner Urban Areas Bill envisages using the local authority as the major tool to effect the rehabilitation of those areas, with which I entirely agree? It is that kind of local contact which amounts to the closest form of democracy. How can we square that concept with the refusal to award to such local authorities the resources to enable them to carry out essential work such as rehabilitation?

Mr. Moore: I was prompted to rise in this debate by the remarks of the spokesman of the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and I found the argument even more of an Alice-in-Wonderland affair than did the right hon. Member for Bermondsey. I noted the argument that there would be some kind of levelling-up process. That astonished me, because I thought that that was the sort of mechanism that Governments liked to see in creating jobs and opportunities. Such a move would reduce the level of unemployment and increase the number of job opportunities throughout the country.
The Liberal spokesman denies the validity of that argument by saying that London's decline, and London's inner city decline, have little to do with regional policies. One cannot have it both ways. I suggest that that is a most untidy point. I accept the Department's concern about the lack of tidiness in an administrative sense. So much of inner city as opposed to regional decay is related to the problem

that, so much of the time, only those closest to the locality can begin to understand.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman see that if, under the Bill, substantially greater financial incentives were available in Greater London, in my own area of North-East Scotland we might be tempted to try to bring in a Bill providing for even greater financial incentives; then, two years later, the GLC would try to introduce another Bill to provide even higher incentives? In that case we could have this constant pull to and fro and no strategy whatsoever for the overall distribution of jobs.

Mr. Moore: I would have thought that I would not be lecturing the Labour Party on the attractions of the so-called magnet, as it is supposed to be. Forgetting that point for a moment, I do not think that those who do not come from the London area have studied with as much detail as they might the specific provisions of the GLC clauses which have relevance to the particulars that we are discussing on these amendments.
We are talking specifically about measures seeking to help small firms. This point has not so far been raised in the debate. We are talking about measures to help small firms with fewer than 100 employees, and those who know something of London's problem—the kind of decay we have seen, and the loss of jobs—know that the aid and assistance will go only to small firms.
I take the point put by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), but the classic pattern has been the development of a small successful unit, often within London, and then the movement out to a place where the company develops a major plant, having grown from nothing in the central part of London or some other great city. I do not wish in any way to deprive Liverpool or any other conurbation of the same opportunities. We are essentially on an inner city argument. Our problem nationally is that when we debate this issue in a governmental sense we tend to do it regionally rather than in terms of inner urban decay.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman must not take my words out of context. In


talking about levelling up, I was not decrying the objective of levelling up employment so that we get as close to full employment as we can everywhere. I was talking of levelling up the incentives available in different parts of the country so that the local authorities in almost every area each paid an identical high rate of incentive to attract firms away from each other. That would be a great deal of expenditure to no purpose. Either we would have that or we would have the even more frightenting prospect of local authorities trying to outbid each other by constantly trying to exceed that level.

Mr. Moore: Surely, again, we are arguing absurdities. What has happened to the old Liberalism of the nineteenth century? We first seem to be assuming that we automatically deprive by creating an attraction, and we also automatically seem to be assuming—this is what I find bewildering and absurd—that only from the centre could a decision of strategic value be made. Surely the interaction of competitive areas of success might raise the whole threshhold of our society, economically.
Again, we are arguing these specious points about public expenditure. I wish that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon Tweed would study the measure for which the GLC is arguing. We are talking about modest assistance by the GLC to firms with fewer than 100 employees. We are not talking about vast firms with 3,000, 5,000 or 10,000 employees. We are talking about modest little firms, trying to start up and provide employment.
This is crucial. Those of us who represent London, who understand something of its problems, and have grown up in it, will be aware of the nature of the problem of inner city decay. Its nature is so much related to the death of jobs in the inner city, and the kinds of jobs that we are talking about come basically from small units. Obviously, I would seek to try to help those hon. Members from other parts of the country, but in London we have over 11 per cent. of the nation's unemployed. We have about half of those unemployed in the inner city. When we talk about the levels of unemployment, we should also look at the level of unemployment amongst the young people between the ages of 18 and 24 in the inner areas of London.
Let us consider the possibilities of jobs for young black people there. If one says to such a young man trying to find a job "It will all be sorted out ultimately through the inner urban strategy and regional policy", one finds that he has heard it all before. He has heard it before especially in debates on regional assistance, about the ability of Government strategically to decide where and when this country is to develop. We have watched 600,000 jobs disappear from London between 1961 and 1976. Surely we should be leaping in the air saying "Here is a modest measure which has no implications for the public sector borrowing requirement and public expenditure other than within the locality of London." Supposing that it is successful: great; let everyone else seek to emulate that success.

Mr. Fred Evans: I hate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman too often, but he is bringing out some valuable points. The first point he has brought out is that much of the industry in London is seedbed industry, and that once it grows to a certain level and is capable of expansion, it moves out to what are perhaps assisted areas, so the traffic is not all one way. Of the small firms that have gone under in London, only a tiny percentage have relocated themselves elsewhere. Most have simply become non-viable and have disappeared, and their jobs have been lost to everyone.

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. I do not want to belabour the point that I am trying to make, other than to say that we have essentially a problem of inner city decay and that here we have suggested some modest measures to try to adjust the downward spiral. We have to break out of this cycle of decay. I cannot imagine that anyone could disagree with the proposals. The only argument, it seems, is that they are potentially too successful. With the problems that we have in inner cities, surely hon. Members on both sides of the House should seek to endorse such measures. I hope that we shall reject the amendments.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) in saying that a good deal of the initiative in this matter should be local.


A few months ago, I argued that what we needed in Sunderland was a local "supremo" who would be responsible for the Sunderland problem. That might be a breakthrough. One needs an approach like that to get something done.
I intervene only because the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) relied on Sunderland as the example for his case. The Tyne and Wear Act gave the precedent. That Act was justified because it was within the Government's regional policy. It made things better for Tyne and Wear. Tyne and Wear was acknowledged to be a part of the country which should have a regional policy designation.
The crux of the problem is whether we keep the differential between the regions to be assisted and the rest of the country. That is what we are really arguing about. Sunderland would certainly be prejudiced if we were to have an auction for using ratepayers' money. We have a privilege at the moment, but if this source became generally available we would lose out because we are poorer than competing authorities.
The same applies to London. If we compare London with the North-East, we find that the North-East has Darlington and Teesside, relatively better off than the rest of the region, but still we could not compare with the Greater London region.
We are against these provisions in the Bill, but that does not resolve the debate. The Government have to get down to this and make much more alive the local element of responsibility and initiative in solving the unemployment problem. For example, as the hon. Member for Croydon, Central said, the question of small firms is a matter of local knowledge, knowing what one can do and which people one can support. It is not a problem peculiar to London. It is very much now a problem in regions such as my own. We are particularly concerned. It is very difficult to support the small firms. That is a much more difficult problem. It is easy enough to say that we have the NEB and the rest, but it is very difficult to get the support through to the small firms that one feels locally should be helped.
I hope that what will come out of the debate is that the unemployment problem

will not be dealt with simply on national lines. It must be broken down and made an individual local problem, with individual local responsibility in tackling it.

Mr. William Shelton: I have found this debate extremely interesting. I have heard two propositions, which I think I have understood rightly, put forward by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment.
The two propositions in support of the amendments, which I strongly oppose, seem to be as follows. The first is that there is only a finite number of jobs in the country, which in some extraordinary way must be competed for by the various regions. That entirely ignores what I believe to be the truth, that jobs are created by the environment and can be created with help under the Bill—for example, by Clauses 8, 12 and 13. Their provisions do not mean competition with other parts of the country.
The second matter, which I found extraordinary, was the arrogant, clear and unequivocal declaration that central Government knew best and that local government knows nothing about it. I very much hope that when the Under-Secretary reads Hansard tomorrow morning and sees what he said, he will write to some of his friends in local government and assure them that that is not the case.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I think that if the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow morning he will see that I never uttered the words "central Government knows best." What I said was that the Government had to make a decision on the basis of objectively chosen criteria—rather a different statement—that it had to be done on that basis rather than on the kind of basis on which we are considering individual boroughs this evening.

Mr. Shelton: If that is so, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that in foreshadowing the Inner Urban Areas Bill on 6th April last year the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
local authorities…must be the main agents for action".—[Official Report, 6th April 1978; Vol. 929, c. 1227.]


Paragraph 31 of the White Paper "Policy for the Inner Cities" said:
Local authorities are the natural agencies to tackle inner area problems.
Paragraph 33 said:
Local authorities with inner area problems will need to be entrepreneurial in the attraction of industry and commerce.
Paragraph 39 encourages local authorities:
to stimulate investment by the private sector".
Here we have a case in which local authorities, 10 inner London boroughs and the Greater London Council, are asking for powers to do, out of their own resources, precisely what the White Paper encourages them to do. I repeat that they are proposing to use their own resources. Therefore, it is not a matter of subtracting resources from elsewhere in the country.
It is not a matter of competition for resources. It is not a matter of resources used, for example, by my borough of Lambeth therefore not being available to Berwick-upon-Tweed. If Berwick-upon-Tweed wished to do the same, good luck to it. If Lambeth wishes to do it, good luck to Lambeth.
Ten boroughs have petitioned for Clauses 12 and 13. I remind the House that they are Camden, Greenwich, Hammersmith, Haringey, Lambeth, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth. At the time, nine of the ten were Socialist boroughs. They were telling the Government and the Under-Secretary "The Inner Urban Areas Bill does not give us exactly what we want in this direction; that is why we are asking for this help now." I did not have the privilege of sitting on the Committee, but I understand that those who did sit on it looked at the matter very seriously for a long time and came forward with this recommendation.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on Report on the Inner Urban Areas Bill considerable strengthening was given to powers in that Bill? He might perhaps reconsider the situation in the light of what was done then.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Shelton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is aware whether the boroughs have withdrawn their request. I am not aware

that they have. My understanding is that they are as anxious as they ever were—certainly that goes for Lambeth—that these powers should be granted in this Bill.
Resources are not in competition with each other here. We are trying to create more jobs. When we look at London we see a picture of decline over the past 15 or 20 years.
The Under-Secretary clearly has great faith in central planning. I understand that in the early 1890s there was a very high-powered meeting to plan the future of London. No doubt the Under-Secretary of the day was there, together with many other very knowledgeable people. One of the matters they discussed was how large London would become in the next decade, two decades, or three decades. London then had about 5 million people. It was unanimously decided that it could never grow to more than about 6 million, because of the problems of stabling the horses and disposing of the manure. I have always thought that that was a very good example of centralised planning.
By 1961 we had 8 million people. In 1976 we had 7 million. In about 15 years we had dropped about 1 million people in London, which must be a matter of great concern to all London Members. I think that we know the reasons. Some must be to do with planning, with office development permits and the problem of the small company, the small industry, finding a difficult inner city environment in which to grow.
It is precisely on this point that the GLC and the ten boroughs are asking for permission to use their own resources in a certain way, not in competition with Berwick-upon-Tweed or other parts of the country, to try to cope with the difficulties they are meeting. That is why I strongly ask the House to reject the amendments.

Mr. Ronald Brown: The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) has made an extraordinary statement. He is making history rather than telling it. It may be useful if we recap.
I moved the Second Reading of the Bill. I was the Member in charge of the Bill. It is customary for the Member in charge to state the case in the House.


I am not the Member in charge on this occasion. The Member in charge is the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). It is extraordinary that he sits on his behind and makes no intervention to discuss why the promoters of the Bill have changed their mind since we started on 26th April 1977, when I moved Second Reading.
I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's view is or how I can anticipate what he will say. But the reason we are n the state we are in today is that when the change of political control of the GLC took place in May 1977 Mr. Horace Cutler found the hon. Gentleman's arguments extremely powerful, and he decided that Clauses 8, 9, 10 and 11 should be struck from the Bill. From that moment the clauses we are discussing, which the amendments would leave out, were not in the Bill, because the Conservatives decided that London did not want them, that they were unnecessary and stupid things that should be cut out.
I was then asked on behalf of the London Members how we could react. The Tories were in control at County Hall. I suggested to my colleagues in the London boroughs that maybe some of the boroughs should form themselves into a consortium to petition to have these clauses put back, because the Conservatives in London decided that London did not want that. That is what they did. They formed themselves into a group and when they appeared before a Committee of this House they were successful in defeating the Conservatives by having the clauses put back.
The one impediment to the whole exercise was that the petitioners did not represent all of the boroughs. I fondly expected that the Committee, recognising all of the evidence and the fact that only ten petitioners were there, would find ways and means of extending the issue to the whole of the London area. That did not happen. The action was restricted to the 10 designated boroughs. That is why the present clauses are a nonsense—because Hackney and Islington are left out.

Mr. William Shelton: May I ask the hon. Member whether Hackney petitioned to be included.

Mr. Brown: I shall come to that. Let us get facts first. The hon. Gentleman

has just argued that these clauses are so important and that the GLC wanted them so much that it took them out. That is the silly part. It did not put them back. That is precisely what the GLC did not do. It opposed the move to put them back into the Bill. The petitioners wanted to put them back. The Tories opposed that. We had better get that clear.
The hon. Member for Streatham asked about my beloved Hackney. I had hoped that Hackney would have joined the other ten. It did not matter whether it was ten or twenty. All that I wanted was the defeat of the Tories in London who were trying to spoil London. They argued that they did not want the powers. I fondly believed that, even if Hackney and Islington thought that there was no reason for them to go ahead, if the petitioners won they would be covered as a result. That is why Hackney did not join the petition—because it thought that it would be covered if the case was won.
The hon. Member for Streatham has told us how much these powers are wanted. We ought to return to the debate of 26th April to see how we looked at the matter then. In introducing the Bill I talked about Clauses 8, 9, 10 and 11. The numbers have changed now but they are still the same clauses. I argued that I believed that London wanted them. The hon. Member for Hampstead was speaking on behalf of the Opposition. It is interesting to note how he described them. He ranged very widely. He called them "Bennery" and a back-door method employed by the National Enterprise Board. He said that in no circumstances would he have them; he would see them passed over his dead body. Some of his quotations are super. As I re-read them I understood why he wants to speak last. Dealing with Clause 8 he said that he thought it:
would permit the GLC to undertake extensive direct labour building operations.
He went on:
These clauses are not good.
He went on to explain how the Government ought to control the situation. He told us about the whole problem. He explained that in ten days' time there would be a change at County Hall. Referring to the London boroughs and the GLC, he said:


I do not want them to have these powers…I should be happier for this place to retain control over the Secretary of State when he tries to do anything under the National Enterprise Board's powers—at least until it is possible to take control of the London boroughs.
That is slightly different from what we are hearing today. He wanted control to remain in this House, as my right hon. Friend is suggesting. He said then that that was the right thing to do because he did not trust local government. The hon. Member for Streatham has said that he hopes that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will tell his hon. Friends that he does not trust local Government. The hon. Member for Hampstead has already said that he did not want local government to have these powers because he did not trust local government. In any event, he said:
To that extent, it is not right or necessary to have duplication of powers.
That was only with regard to Clause 8. The hon. Gentleman was not satisfied. He went on to Clause 9 and described that in pretty scathing terms. He said that it provided
power to make loans for the acquisition of land for the provision, extension or improvement of industrial buildings.
He said that he thought that that was quite wrong, and he finished by saying:
I do not believe there is the need for further powers to be taken by a subsidiary body."—[Official Report, 26th April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 1130–1.]
I do not quite understand all of the arguments today. In case it was thought that he was the only convert to the idea that these clauses were totally wrong and ought to be discarded, his hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) intervened to ask whether he did not believe that if the clauses remained in the Bill they would be turning Government regional policy on its head. He thought that that was terribly wrong. The hon. Member explained why the clauses could only do harm and would ruin any regional policy. The hon. Member for Hampstead went on to describe Part III of the Bill. He wanted to tear away Salome's veil. When he had gone through it all he then said that he thought the clauses were academic. He said:
It is academic, however, in this case"—
talking about Part III and these provisions we are discussing now—
because the GLC will not be willing to operate such a provision in ten days' time.

He was saying that the Tory GLC did not want Clauses 8, 10, 11 and 13, the very ones which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is trying to take out. The hon. Member for Hampstead said that the Tory GLC did not want the clauses and would not operate them. To cap it all he said:
We repudiate this type of interventionism."—[Official Report, 26th April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 1126–36.]
We have been listening to this nonsense tonight about the desires of the Tory-controlled GLC. It is hocus pocus, There never was any desire on its part. In case there is any doubt, in case anyone in the House or outside thought there was a chance that the hon. Gentleman had got it wrong, at the end of the debate we had to move the closure because the hon. Member was busy trying to talk the Bill out. He even wanted the good parts of the Bill to be destroyed. When we moved the closure—on a Private Bill with no Government Whips operating—my hon. Friends and I had to turn out 190 "Ayes" for the closure. The Conservatives, pretending that there was no Whip, had to turn out 163 "Noes". When we got the closure, there was still some doubt. The London Tories thought that there was some doubt because it was possible that they would be in favour of these clauses and so they divided on the Bill. We had to turn out 192 votes in favour of the Bill—containing these very clauses—with the Conservatives turning out 162 against it. That made it quite clear to this House and to the world at large—and particularly to London—that Mr. Horace Cutler and Conservative Members regarded these provisions as wrong and fundamentally unsound, and were prepared to lose the Bill rather than have them in it. I hope, therefore, that we shall take their advice tonight and ensure that these clauses are left out.
I do not want to rehearse all the arguments. It is not true that the London boroughs said that they found the provisions in the Inner Urban Areas Bill insufficient. I have told the House the reason for the Conservatives' action. It was because Mr. Horace Cutler had taken out the provisions and they wanted them back in again. The boroughs could not have said what is suggested because the Inner Urban Areas Bill was not then in existence.
The London boroughs backed up a position in the hope that if the Government were unable, through parliamentary problems in this House, to get through the provisions of the Inner Urban Areas Bill, the London boroughs would have salvaged at least one issue in the face of complete Conservative opposition. If the Conservatives had their way, Londoners would have been deprived of jobs, and it would have stopped industry from being brought into London.
8.30 p.m.
I hope that with those brief remarks I have brought to the attention of hon. Members the real issue that is involved here, and shown that what we have seen from the Conservatives is a charade. I hope that the amendments will be supported.

Mr. Rhodes James: I do not want to get involved in the more interesting aspects of London politics but, as a member of the Private Bill Committee which considered the Bill, I wish to speak briefly for myself, and not for my colleagues on the Committee, to emphasise to the House the dominant reasons which influenced me in voting for the clauses which are now the subject of the amendments.
The fact was that ten boroughs petitioned for these clauses, and the only opposition to the clauses came from the representatives of the Government. There was no opposition from the GLC. For three days the Committee listened to the evidence given against the ten boroughs and decided in favour of the boroughs' arguments.
Speaking entirely for myself, I thought that the dominant factors in our decision were these. First, there was the argument of need. As that argument developed, there was no question in my mind but that the need existed. The figures speak for themselves. As hon. Members on each side have emphasised, the flood of jobs and opportunities away from inner London represents one of the great tragedies and the great challenges of our time.
Secondly, there was the argument that local authorities, knowing their own particular areas and their own particular problems, were in a far better position than Whitehall or anyone else to give

real direct help. They could do it much more effectively than by a general public Act. That is an argument which impressed me very considerably. It was put forward at great length and in detail.
Apart from this, what influenced me very much was an argument which was never fully developed but which lay behind the case put before us. What is the role for local government at all in this country if local authorities are not enabled to use their own resources and their own judgment to assist their own areas? I know that this argument can be carried too far, and I accept some of the points made by the Under-Secretary, but it seemed to me—and I think to all my colleagues—that, faced with this particular crisis in inner London, the local authorities, recognising and knowing their own problems, were only asking for the opportunity to use their own limited resources in the way which they felt would best assist their own businesses—and particularly small businesses, as has been emphasised—in their own areas. These arguments seem to me to be overwhelmingly strong.
I do not wish to over-emphasise the point, but it is unusual for a Private Bill Committee to be overruled by the House on consideration. It has happened several times before but it is still unusual. Private Bill Committees are chosen from hon. Members with no direct personal interest in the area under discussion. For several days they take very detailed evidence. They come to a decision that is based entirely on their judgment, and with no local or national party political basis at all.
I think it would be very regrettable if the House were to overturn the decision of the Committee in this matter. We came to our decision fully recognising the general implications of what we were doing. We also recognised the case for need, the particular problems of the ten boroughs, their desire to try to resolve those problems by their own resources, in their own way and with their own local knowledge. That Committee was in no position to say to those boroughs that they could not do that. The House is in no position to say to those ten boroughs that they cannot do what they think is best with their own resources, their own areas and their own people.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that when his Committee was asked to examine that Bill it was a different Bill from that which left this House? Clauses 8, 10 and 11 were obsolete and Clause 9 was being amended.

Mr. Rhodes James: That is correct.

Mr. Brown: Clause 9 was being amended by the Tory GLC.

Mr. Rhodes James: I am not making any party point. I am referring to the situation which faced that Committee, when it had proposals and petitions put before it for clauses moved by the ten boroughs. We took evidence on those matters on the merits as we saw them.
The House would be ill-advised, in spite of what the Minister has said, to overturn the judgment of that Committee that local authorities should resolve local needs and local problems with their own resources.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I start with at least one advantage, which is that I did not take any part in the debate in April 1977. We are in Wonderland, as has been said this evening. The Conservative contributors to the debate are in favour of more liberal expenditure by local authorities, the Liberals are in favour of less liberal expenditure, and my hon. Friends are apparently in favour of even less. The one person who does not speak at all is the promoter of the Bill.
As we are thus somewhat in Wonderland, I choose my words carefully. I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that we must have some sort of coherent and rational policy covering the country as a whole. Having said that, I hope that there is no doubt in the minds of everyone in the House about the seriousness of the inner London employment and dereliction problem.
I have in the past been a strong advocate of steering industrial development to the development areas some distance from London. I have encouraged and assisted firms in my constituency to move from there to Tyneside, to the Swansea Valley and elsewhere, where there was then much greater need of employment. The very success of that policy has to some extent, together with other causes, altered the problem. Unemployment in London in some cases is nearly as high

as it is in those areas, and probably even more industrial areas in London have derelict sites. The recent report of the Port of London Authority shows that there may be even worse to come.
I therefore welcome the powers in the Bill, particularly the publicity and advertisement powers for London, on which at least we are all in agreement. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the help which is being given in the Inner Urban Areas Bill, which most of us welcome. I agree with the Minister that it is right to concentrate the help that we are to give in those areas that need it most, whether in London or elsewhere. I congratulate the Secretary of State on including the London Borough of Wandsworth in the list of designated areas—although he took rather a long time to do so. That was a welcome and sensible step.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will realise that great anxiety is still felt among the petitioning boroughs, including Wandsworth, about the present situation. These councils would have liked to see the powers in the Inner Urban Areas Bill and the additional powers in this Bill all made available. They argue—and I agree with them—that these powers are intended to assist small firms in difficulties and not to discourage large firms from going to other areas in the country. That was the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and there is great truth in it. There is no point in allowing small firms to collapse in London when, if they are not assisted, they will not move elsewhere but will simply go out of business altogether. There are certainly some such cases.

Mr. Beith: No one would wish that to happen, but surely the right hon. Gentleman must consider the attraction of small firms from other areas, perhaps including some in difficulties, into London. In many ways it is easier for the small firm to move than it is for the large firm.
I know from my own area how, until the Government rightly extended the small firms employment subsidy, there was a tendency for small firms to move to special development areas where the incentives were greater. It was a lot easier for them to do that than it is for large firms to uproot themselves. The


right hon. Gentleman must consider the competitive attraction of high rates of assistance for small firms in one area and not in others.

Mr. Jay: All these cases may exist, but I know of few instances of small firms moving from outside London into the inner London area.
I gather from the Minister that the Government feel that the ten petitioning boroughs are asking for too much in wanting still more powers added to those that the Government are offering in the Inner Urban Areas Bill. If that is the Government's attitude, I hope that they will at least realise the genuine anxieties in the minds of some of those responsible for the London boroughs and I hope that the administration of the Inner Urban Areas Bill will be positive and flexible enough to allay some of the fears that exist.
Some London councils feel that in the exercise of the powers under the Inner Urban Areas Bill, too many consents and approvals will have to be obtained before expenditure is sanctioned, that the industrial improvement areas will be too limited and that problems will arise outside them or that the administrative delays may be so long that, in some cases, firms will go out of business before the machinery has been gone through.
I should have liked to see the fullest powers available in both Bills, but if the Government are unable to support that proposal, I hope that they will make the fullest use of the powers that will be enacted in both Bills. The need in London—and I do not believe that I need to convince Ministers on this point—is very great and is likely to grow greater. The Bill may not be perfect, but I hope that we shall enact it, even in a curtailed form.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Tebbit: I mistrust the role reversals that one encounters in life from time to time so I find myself faintly uneasy to hear the way in which the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) enthusiastically quotes slices of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). The witty descriptions of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) of those in favour of public expenditure in this context also leave me a little uneasy.
I do not altogether believe the reasons which have been put forward for the role reversals. I do not think that Labour Members have changed their minds because of the Inner Urban Areas Bill. If that were so, I would have thought that their colleagues who sit on the councils of those Labour boroughs which have asked for these powers would also have changed their minds. I am deeply puzzled why the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch should have seen this light and should have suddenly understood how right my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead was—how everything that he said was so correct—yet the councillors, so recently elected to the council in the hon. Gentleman's borough, have not seen the light. I suspect that there is a little more in this than has been admitted.

Mr. Ronald Brown: The hon. Gentleman has not got the story right. I do not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). What I am saying is that the Government have now brought forward an Inner Urban Areas Bill which transcends what we were trying to achieve, because the hon. Gentleman's political colleague—Mr. Cutler—in County Hall wiped them out. That is a different issue.

Mr. Tebbit: I appreciate that. The point that I make is that it seems that all those Labour councillors who have so recently been elected to the Borough of Hackney after such a strong election campaign, have either not heard about the Inner Urban Areas Bill or do not believe it. It is one thing or the other. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman and several of his hon. Friends from inner London seats have suddenly seen this light and understood the situation, whereas Labour councillors who have been elected very recently have not.
I suspect that this is a straightforward question of "Ya-boo, the Tories are in at County Hall. Let us knock 'em around a bit." That is what is going on here tonight from the Labour side of the House. But that is not what is happening in the town halls in Hackney and the other London boroughs.
Therefore, I am not very keen about taking too much notice of the arguments of Labour Members about the reasons why, tonight, everyone is supposed to go


into the Lobbies opposite to those which they went into last time.
What we are really talking about are the problems of unemployment in London. These are problems which should concern us. There are two or three points that we should consider. There are the problems which arise in London from the national problems of low demand in the economy, the economy running with a pathetic rate of growth, and from a number of pieces of legislation. I shall not argue the point for the moment; I shall merely take my case from that of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and say "from a number of pieces of legislation" which are interpreted as being anti-business and, therefore, acting against employment prospects throughout the country.
I do not want to get into a tangle over the question whether they are anti-business or whether they have worsened employment prospects. For the moment I merely agree with the Chancellor of the Duchy that that is the way they have been interpreted and that is the effect they have had. All of us from Land's End to John o' Groat's suffer from those problems. Therefore, I put them on one side for the moment because this Bill does not affect these problems.
We then have another major problem in London, as in other places—the problem of the unsuitability for the work available of many of the people currently on the market and coming on to the market. The obvious need is for retraining in some cases and training in many others. The need, more particularly, is for education. Employers in my part of London complain bitterly to me about the difficulty of obtaining the people whom they need in their works. Earlier today I spoke about the problems of British Rail in my part of London, where there are frequent cancellations of trains because of staff shortages.
I find it difficult to believe that the problems of unemployment are quite as simple as they are sometimes presented to us. I know many employers who say that they could employ more people if only they could get skilled people. All too often employers say that they have advertised for people to do basic clerical

work only to find that none of the applicants was in any way literate or numerate to the standard required. Tragically, many of these are school leavers. This Bill will not affect them.
Whatever the progress in education and training—and obviously all of us want to see standards improve in both, whatever differences we may have about the way to go about it—there will be a number of people in London especially who are simply not suited to the types of office and service work which are now beginning to dominate London.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) referred to the problem of immigrants in London, especially recent immigrants with a poor command of English. It is almost certain that because of that, if not because of other factors, many young immigrants have a low educational standard when they leave school and, because of it, a poor chance of finding work in the sort of employment which is now, happily, expanding in London. As a consequence, many of them will look for jobs in manufacturing industry.
Here we have the problem that is facing London. It is a problem with which the original Bill sought to deal and which this Bill, as it has been modified, is seeking to grapple more than anything else. We do not need to subsidise office jobs in London. If we need to do anything at all, we need to provide jobs in manufacturing. So we have to ask ourselves whether the Bill's provisions, especially those clauses which at the moment are in dispute, are likely to help resolve the problem that I have described.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out that it would be ridiculous if we all tried to wear shoes with higher and higher heels in order to be able to look over each other's heads. He said that regional aid had not been notably effective in transferring jobs from London, as the most overcrowded and prosperous part of the so-called overcrowded and prosperous South-East, to the development areas and special development areas. There have been problems in that regard. Most of the jobs which have disappeared from my part of London have tended to go to the new towns rather than to the more distant areas. To that end, the Secretary


of State was right, not all that long ago, to check the growth of those new towns around the London area.
I am glad that we have throttled back places such as Milton Keynes. Some of the earlier new towns—for example, Hemel Hempstead—have been outstandingly successful, but the moment has come when we should not go further down that road, and the Secretary of State was right to act as he did.
If, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, these incentives are so lack-lustre in their effect that they are failing to drag jobs from overcrowded London to places such as Berwick and the Northern Region generally, we must question whether the relatively modest measures in the Bill would drag them back again or stop them from leaving London. The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. It seems to me that he is questioning the whole basis of discriminatory regional aid throughout the country.

Mr. Max Madden: Does the hon. Member agree that doing anything of necessity interferes with the free market? As a fierce advocate of the free market, why does he allow the London area to be an exception to his general philosophy?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Member should wait and see whether it is to be an exception from my general philosophy. When I consider the reasons why industry and jobs have left London, I find that there are a number of them. The first is a shortage of suitable sites, coupled with planning problems.
I shall give a small and simple case to illustrate this. When I lived in Islington I had the good fortune to find a little old man who was a wrought-iron worker. He employed only two other people. He was working in a rundown part of Islington which has now been redeveloped as a "planner's paradise". Whether people are happy there now I do not know. The next time I went to find my wrought-iron worker, I found that he was gone. He had retired and packed in his business—not because he wanted to, but because he had nowhere to go. The great redevelopment had come, the planners had washed the antiseptic paint over everything, and all was good—not as good as it was in the days when

we were building tower blocks, of course, but pretty good, anyway. The poor little old man and his job had been extinguished—he was just one more statistic.
Another factor in driving jobs out of London is the high cost of labour in the capital. Will this Bill reduce it? I do not think so. Site access problems are very severe in London. Will this Bill solve these problems? I do not think so.
Will it solve the problem of high rates in London? I do not think that anyone would suggest that this Bill provides a way of reducing the rates, yet the problem of high rates is one of those which drive small firms—and some big ones—out of London. I have asked myself whether the proposition that firms can be kept going or created by this form of aid holds any water at all. It is the deep-rooted conviction of people like the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch that this aid does keep jobs going. But he does not want to see it extended tonight. He has certainly not convinced his local government colleagues, or they would not be asking for the powers in the Bill—

Mr. Ronald Brown: They are not asking for them.

Mr. Tebbit: All right. Perhaps his borough is not, but there are one or two inner London boroughs which are.
I find it very difficult to believe that this sort of aid will deal with the problems. Our problems are different from those which can be dealt with purely by subsidies. Force feeding industry in London, even to this extent, will prompt other parts of the country to do the same. I do not think that that will be good for London, for the London ratepayers or for ratepayers in other parts of the country.
I am not naturally a centralist in government terms, but if overall aids and incentives are to be offered to industry, it is better for someone, whose vision is not blinded by the trees, to see the whole wood.

Mr. Ogden: If that is so, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us why the House of Commons has discussed devolution to Scotland and Wales over the past six months.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Tebbit: I cannot imagine any good reason for the House debating those matters. As an exercise in occupational therapy to keep us out of mischief when we might have been doing something worse, that may be acceptable. I do not object unduly to that approach, provided that we do not enact the ridiculous Bills at the end of the day. I am entirely with the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) on that score. I shall not go into the question whether he is with his Front Bench.
I fancy that we could find ourselves bringing disadvantage to many parts of the country. I understand from my friends in business that there is no shortage of cash to back viable firms with viable products that have sales and all the other elements that are needed to be in business other than the literal cash. Interest rates are too high and they are increasing, but it is a bit much to expect the poor old London boroughs, or the GLC, to counter-balance the Government's economic policies. In general I should prefer to get local authorities back to undertaking the activities for which they were established. Some of those activities are extremely important in helping industry.
I do not want to be dogmatic. I am not against the appointment of industrial liaison officers, for example, to find industry that might like to go to the boroughs, to try to make arrangements that are suitable for it, and to help in many ways. For example, in my borough we desperately need a road to go from a derelict and disused marshalling yard to connect with the M11. The road would help to provide jobs and bring industry back into London. That is a proper activity for the local authority, because nobody else can do it. Money can be borrowed from the bank, but we cannot go to the bank to get it to build a road. Let the local authorities do the things for which they were established and which only they can undertake.
The selective use of aid for some firms and not others, which would be inevitable under the Bill, is not something that we should lightly encourage. I agree with other London Members that London is special. It is absurd for others to want in some way to pull London down. We cannot make the rest of the country richer by making London poorer. We do

not want to move in that direction. London has suffered badly in recent years because of the efforts of some to make it poorer so as to make the rest of the country richer. That does not work.
There are other special things in London. There is derelict dockland. That dockland is not derelict for the lack of the powers that are in the Bill. We should deal first with that sort of problem. If we find that by dealing with those problems—in other words, getting local government to understand the needs of industry—we have not worked the trick we may again consider whether local government should go into competition with the NEB, which is the basic proposition behind the clauses.

Mr. Fred Evans: First, it has become clear that I was a Member of the Committee on Opposed Private Bills that examined this issue. Secondly, I come from an assisted area with a large element of unemployment and a travel-to-work area that at one time not so long ago achieved the distinction of being the area of highest unemployment in the whole of England and Wales.
The last thing that I want to do is further to aggravate the chronic situation that has continued for many years in my own area. However, when I receive letters from my local authority asking me to oppose the Bill I can trace the moves back. It would be the Welsh Development Corporation that suddenly saw some great threat in the Bill.
Frankly, I find it faintly ridiculous when I listen to evidence that, say, Walthamstow, where 80 per cent. of companies employ fewer than 25 people and large elements of that percentage employ only two, three or four people, will pose a great threat to the status of my area which is an assisted area. I find that quite comic. But that is the bogy that has been built up in the Press and other mass media.
I do not want to enter into the polemics which have gone on between my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) and others because, like all good Welshmen, I am particularly free from polemics. It was absurd of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to talk about these small firms—almost backstreet industries—being attracted from


Berwick-upon-Tweed to this great metropolis. When I hear such things, I honestly smile with compassion.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I accept that there is little likelihood of people coming from Berwick-upon-Tweed or from Aberdeen to London. But if the powers in the Bill were sought and achieved by other areas further north of London, because they will all argue precedence, would not the possibility of industries in those small areas moving closer to London become a very serious threat to the assisted areas?

Mr. Evans: I should not think so. I hope that the proving of something in the Greater London area will lead other areas to emulate and to ask for such powers.
Despite the existence of the Welsh Development Agency and the Scottish Development Agency, I still believe that local government means what it says—the command of as great a totality of its forces as it can get for the people being governed by that institution. That is the very soul of democracy. It is what this place ought to exist for. It is certainly what we ought to make local government try to exist for.
The fact that I come from an assisted area means, I hope, that I well understand, when I look at cold statistics and see X percentage of unemployed, that for any man unemployed that is to him 100 per cent. unemployment. I was born in South Wales and lived through the tragic mining period of the 1920s and 1930s. I have seen the further sufferings inflicted today. Therefore, I feel the necessary compassion to want to do something about it. I want to do the best possible for London as well as for my own part of the country. Although my part of the country has its own special niche in my heart, the problem is essentially the same.
I assure the House that Members serving on the Committee on Opposed Private Bills do not idly dream away the moments. At least, they do not seem to do that when I am there. I may be unlucky in escaping the sleeping sessions. The Committee was hard working. It spent over three days examining the problem in depth for about six hours a day. It heard expert barristers on all sides. It cross-questioned witnesses and learned counsel. It arrived at a decision. I

believe that the decision was sincerely arrived at and that it was strongly based on opinions.
I spoke a moment ago about the futility of dealing with obstruction such as percentages of unemployment. Yet there is an equal danger in the other direction. We talk loosely about unemployment and we do not relate it to what it means in human terms. Somewhere between those attitudes is right. Hon. Members might be fully conversant with those facts but they should go on record.
I shall try to paint the picture of what is happening in London. London is a special case. Its special case is endemic in its size and will probably increase as its population increases. About 7 million people live in London. That population is larger than eight European nations, three of which are members of the EEC and which carry out their full range of functions as members of the EEC.
The rate of unemployment in the Greater London area surpasses the rate of unemployment in such a severely hit country as Scotland. Inner London has 83,000 unemployed. A little over one-ninth of the total unemployed in the British Isles are in the London area. When one considers those facts one can see that London has a special problem and that there is a need for special approaches.
Many of the aspects at which we have looked have been nitty gritty compared with figures of that kind. It is absurd to expect people to carry out local democracy, to apply the Inner Urban Areas Bill when social rehabilitation rests so much with them and then say that we shall not give them the right to attract resources by their own initiatives.
If the evidence that I heard is correct, London does not want to attract large-scale industry such as the Surrey Docks but the small industry employing perhaps only half a dozen people which, when it perishes—as was pointed out in the case of the hand wrought-iron manufacturer—does not flee to the assisted areas. Such firms are totally wiped out with a total loss of employment opportunity to everybody, in the assisted areas and in London. The jobs disappear and there are no opportunities for further jobs to be created. This cumulative problem continues.
9.15 p.m.
Between 1961 and 1976 the number of people in London fell by 12 per cent. from 4·3 million to 3·8 million. Yet in the South-East as a whole that trend was reversed. In that region the number rose by 30 per cent. In the whole of England and Wales, even including the assisted areas, the number went up by 5 per cent. London was therefore being continually drained, and that trend was assisted by the myth of London's wealth.
Every capital city has its big spenders and its high earners. But traditionally every great city has its squalid side of life, and London is no exception. The squalor however tends to be lost in the garish show of ostentatious wealth. But what is happening now in London? At one time London could afford to have its jobs creamed off without feeling unduly perturbed. But now the trend means that London is beoming increasingly derelict both in employment and social terms. The economic climate is limiting job opportunities. However, the image of wealthy London persists and therefore no one hesitates to drag industry out of London, increasing the severity of the blow felt by the capital every time that happens.
This is the background against which we conduct our debate tonight. The loss of office jobs was greater in London during the period I have mentioned than it was not only in the rest of the South-East but in England and Wales as a whole.
London cannot continue to sustain such blows and survive. It is a matter of prime national importance that London, with its great history, should survive. We must have a place of fascination for the tourists and a home for the historian and the musician. All the multifarious aspects of London life must be sustained, and efforts must be made to secure that.
I do not understand how London can be regarded as the magnet of the South-East. The greatest fall in employment was in manufacturing industries where the number dropped from 1,430,000 to 827,000 by 1976. When people call into doubt the efficacy of regional policy, as they do, particularly in my area, they are in effect saying that they could do the job better on their own. They take that view because the response of government

tal institutions to the organic changes in our society is often too slow.
In the London area the organic changes that have taken place are only just beginning to be caught up with by the provisions of the Inner Urban Areas Bill. The ten boroughs to which I have referred and which live day to day with these problems do not see the present provisions as being as expeditious or as efficacious as they should be. That came out strongly from the evidence we heard.
If one examines the record of manufacturing industry and other industries in London, one sees that 500,000 jobs have been lost. That puts the matter in a nutshell. Some of the rundown manufacturing industry is cyclical, but the major part of that rundown has resulted from the long-term migration of firms that have left London and from the shrinkage and eventual closure of the small firms that operate in London. That is one aspect that was stressed by the ten boroughs. They do not want to compete with other assisted areas. They require the ability to say "We are willing to help, and we have the power to help these small industries of up to 20 people." The criterion for the small firm was dropped to a figure of under 100. There is little incentive for someone employing under 100 people to emigrate to an assisted area.
I have been involved in this exercise. The assisted area in which I live was so badly in need of jobs that we actively encouraged the firms that wanted to expand a little to undertake this kind of exercise. I do not think that there are many of them. I should like to be given the percentages of these movements so that I can judge whether many small firms have moved into London. I believe that it is a surprisingly small number.
The introduction of regional policies to cream off some of the London benefits is a very different situation. There are many people who now question the way in which regional policy is succeeding in dealing with the situation. In my part of South Wales this has been very much the case for a couple of years. There has been some activity in the buoyant areas which has generated some kind of growth. But the national population has become roughly stable. The national economy is not as buoyant as it was. Therefore, there is not the investment or


the urge to try anything just in case it may not come off. These things are still very much of a gamble. If population and jobs are being drawn out of London, that will be at the expense of the London economy.
Let me deal with the question of the inner cities—the areas where the effects have been felt so tragically in human terms inside the family and in many social relationships. This again was shown by the evidence we heard from the ten boroughs. Therefore, on top of the severe social problems, local authorities have to contend with another factor. They have to contend with the fact that the decline in employment tends to be greater, both in numbers and proportionately.
The male resident unemployment in London, especially in these ten boroughs, increasingly outstrips the national rate for male unemployment. The rise in the figures reflects the situation. In October 1973, the unempolyment rate was 2·4 per cent., and in January 1978, it was 7·8 per cent. There were 2,400 men out of work in Poplar alone.

Mr. Ronald Brown: My hon. Friend is doing a remarkably interesting job for the House in drawing attention to the London problem, but I draw his attention to the fact that if we do not get this Bill completed by 10 o'clock we shall have no Bill at all. We understand the point that he making so powerfully, but we are anxious to complete the Bill.

Mr. Evans: I shall not deal separately with the problems of the ten boroughs, except to say that they see this Bill as an answer to many of their problems. The Committee became convinced of the truth of the argument and accepted it. It made the necessary amendments, with the results that we have before us. I hope that party feelings will not enter too strongly into this issue and that we shall look at the problem as a human one.
Because I have personal as well as political experience of the kindliness of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I yield to no one in my regard for him, but I also know that Governments find it difficult to accept that they have been defeated and that they will do almost anything to undo a defeat. The evidence of the Ministries to the Committee, on which I served, was

shot to pieces. Therefore, the House should not lightly dismiss a sustained piece of work by a body of people who have gone into this matter very deeply and heard all the evidence. It should think very clearly before it negates the whole of the exercise.

Mr. Finsberg: Clearly, the Bill is three-headed. It has clauses that affect the boroughs, clauses that affect the boroughs and the GLC, and clauses that affect only the GLC. This group of amendments is not a simple one because it covers two of those groups. There has been a great deal of fun in looking at speeches made in April 1977, and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was entitled to have his fun. But perhaps his speech showed why there are no Liberals on the GLC or sitting for London parliamentary seats.
The right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said that he was satisfied with the Inner Urban Areas Bill. Not many people are. The London borough of Camden is not. It is also clear that the arms of many London Members on the Government Benches have been twisted by the Government not to support these clauses.
But the facts are clear. The Inner London Consultative Employment Group, in a letter dated 22nd May and signed by Councillor Kotz, of Hackney, still wants all these powers. The group makes it clear that it wants the clauses kept in because it does not accept the view, put by the Government and others, that the clauses seek to give sweeping powers to give incentives to incoming industries which would otherwise go to the assisted areas. Nor does it believe that it should seek special powers for one local authority when it would be more appropriate for such legislation to be general.
The group asks the House to ignore these arguments for a variety of reasons. The letter was signed by Councillor Kotz, who speaks on behalf of the TUC as well as the London borough of Hackney.
9.30 p.m.
The Secretary of State had plenty of time when he could have taken action on the Surrey Docks, for example. When this Bill first came in, the Inner Urban Areas Bill was not even a whispy promise. We knew nothing about it.


That is why it was right that this Bill should have been introduced then.
Not many people in London can join in the paeans of praise that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey uttered in respect of the Secretary of State. If he thinks that the Secretary of State has done an enormous amount, not many other people do.
The essential difference between this Bill and the Inner Urban Areas Bill is that the latter believes that Whitehall knows best and this Bill believes that the matter is "better left to the boroughs". That is a quotation one has heard more than once.
I hope that it will also be remembered if the clauses are struck out that it was a Lib-Lab pact that caused even more jobs to be lost in London. I do not think that that would be very popular, certainly with the TUC in London.
It is nonsense. What the opposition to these clauses is saying is that it has a dog-in-the-manger attitude. London is losing jobs. Most of them will not go to Yorkshire, Humberside, Scotland or Merseyside. All that is happening is that there is an attempt to remove from the Bill a chance of helping an area. That will not help anyone else. Therefore, it is being monstrously unfair to London to try to do this.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) put forward a theory. He said that if the Bill went through it would encourage authorities in Scotland to introduce other Bills at a later date with even high incentives. That may be true, but not many firms will move businesses offering fewer than 100 jobs from London to Aberdeen. So that is a non-starter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) made it perfectly clear that there was monstrously high unemployment in London—167,000. This is a threat to the entire fabric of the capital city. It exacerbates all the existing social problems—crime, racial tension and urban decay. The Inner Urban Areas Bill does not do enough to remedy those defects. It is wrong that these clauses should be opposed just because they are not available in the generality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) rightly turned our minds to the other side of the equation,

which had not been mentioned until then, that one needs not only to retain jobs but to create even more. He made the point that the cake needed enlarging. We do not want more people biting at the same-sized cake. We want a large cake for more people to share. That is the purpose of the clauses under discussion. The Government's philosophy on this matter is the philosophy of despair—because not everyone can have it, no one can.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), as so often, added many words and much noise but little weight to the debate. He was certainly very short on facts. Three times he accused Horace Cutler of withdrawing certain clauses that the London boroughs wanted. I should like to read from a letter dated 25th July 1977 from the London Boroughs Association, under Labour control, addressed to Mr. Fitzpatrick, the GLC's solicitor and parliamentary officer, because the GLC Bill has to be the vehicle for the London borough clauses. The letter said:
Thank you for your letter dated 12th July enclosing a copy of a letter you had written to Mr. Hooper about the assistance to industry clauses of the GLC (General Powers) Bill.
I now write formally on behalf of the Association withdrawing the reference to London Borough Councils in clauses 8, 10 and 11"—
that was the Bill before it was amended—
which has the effect of removing those clauses from the Bill, and agreeing to the retention of Clauses 9 and 14 subject to the addition of the stipulations required by the Department of the Environment.
One of the reasons why I did not speak earlier was that I wanted to allow the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch to dig the elephant pit into which he has twice fallen. He told us that the GLC withdrew those clauses. That is not a fact, and it is proved not to be a fact by the letter from the London Boroughs Association. I shall not waste time on the rest of the hon. Member's arguments because they all seemed to build up on that point.
The clauses now before the House are different in concept and intent from those originally produced. Some of them include the wording which the Government suggested—the cut-off date, for example. It is also untrue to say that


the clauses are identical. We had a lot of light thrown on this by the hon. Members who sat on the Opposed Bills Committee. I am grateful to them for the detailed scrutiny they gave to the Bill. They did not make the mistake of misquoting; they gave us the facts. I prefer to accept their factual version to anything that I have heard from Labour Members. I believe that any impartial observer would do the same.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) rightly said that he took no part in the April 1977 debate. He voted on that occasion. During the Report stage of the Inner Urban Areas Bill he pressed for the inclusion of Wandsworth in the list of places. As I pointed out to him then, the inclusion of Wandsworth meant that a cake of the same size would have more people biting at it, so that everyone would have a bit less. The right hon. Gentleman recognised that then and it is necessary for him to recognise it again.
Although the Minister did not use the words, the implication throughout his speech was that Whitehall knows best, that it knows better than the local authorities. This was exactly what he said, as Hansard will show. That was the intent of his speech. It is not an identical quotation. It was the gravamen of what he said. It was pointed out over and over again that this was in sharp contradiction to everything said in the White Paper and the statements made by the Secretary of State about the inner urban areas programme. It is a pity that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) is not present, because we now see those marvellous words translated into weasel words which Ministers are using when delivering the goods.
The issues in this debate and in this Bill are those of attracting and retaining jobs. Yet it was in Committee that eventually the Minister was forced to accept retention of jobs qualifying for help. He did not want to do so. He did not think that it was a good thing.

Mr. Guy Barnett: indicated dissent.

Mr. Finsberg: If I am wrong I shall gladly apologise. My recollection of the weary hours spent on that Committee was that the amendment originally tabled by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins)

had to be moved by one of my hon. Friends, and the Minister was not happy and advised the Committee to reject it. I will check the facts.
What the Minister has done is to reiterate the Government's opposition to these clauses and to some aspects of the Bill. The Government tried to do the same on the Opposed Bill Committee and lost. Tonight they are seeking to shelter behind, in some cases, men of straw. This Bill was blocked for a long time by someone who has not even tried to participate in our proceedings tonight. We wondered, when we saw the name, whether it was a man of straw. The fact is that the Bill was blocked.
I believe that the person who has most made the case for the Bill tonight in its present form is the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, who so misquoted and so misled the House. He sought to give the impression that he knew what he was talking about, but when the words of the London Boroughs Association are quoted he stands condemned. I believe that we ought to let these clauses go through.

Mr. Ogden: I am aware of the pressure of time and the usual convention that hon. Members from outside the area of a County Council Bill do not usually intervene unless the effects of the Bill are wider than the geographical area of the Bill itself. At 7 p.m. I believed that the internal politics of Liverpool were the most complicated in the United Kingdom. After hearing tonight's history of London government, and of the role reversal disclosures of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), and various other matters, I have come to the conclusion that in comparison with London's party politics, we are pure and crystal clear in the North-West, and thank God for it.
The debate has produced common anxieties, and anxiety makes strange companions. There has been talk of Alice in Wonderland and of role reversal. Those who previously supported, now oppose. Those who previously opposed, now support.
I am guilty of the charge of consistency. I voted in favour of the closure on 27th April 1977. I voted for these clauses, or something very close to them, on Second Reading. If there is to be a vote—I hope that there will not be—


I shall support them again tonight. I shall do so not simply because of the virtue of the clauses, although those clauses and the needs of London have been made abundantly clear to me over many years, but mainly because I have the good fortune to share an office here with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). This makes for an interesting and lively life, and the needs of London are constantly being pressed on me by my hon. Friend. So, tonight, Liverpool stayed to support London. My hon. Friend now says that in the meantime, between 27th April 1977 and today, the Inner Urban Areas Bill has come along, and that this makes all the difference. That might be so for London, but I do not think it applies to Merseyside.
This is a pathfinder Bill. There are other county council Bills with similar clauses. This Bill contains a mere 17. The Merseyside County Council Bill, making progress through the other place, has 165 clauses. Some clauses of that Bill are almost exactly the same as these clauses. We know the help we have from this Government. We ask again and again for more. I have heard my hon. Friends from Liverpool, from Merseyside, from the North-West and the North-East saying that we need more aid, more help, from Government, either nationally or regionally. What we say is "Help us to help ourselves." I do not much care where the help comes from, whether it is from the National Enterprise Board, or the CBI, the Government, Sir Arnold Weinstock, or anyone else. I am told by independent people, as well as by politicians, on Merseyside that these clauses would provide one way of enabling us to reduce unemployment.
The Government and the Minister have not been saying that their way is best. The Minister has said that he wants an orderly priority, assessment of where the help ought to go. He believes that his way is right, but there are other ways of giving assistance—complementary ways, particularly for the service industries.

If the clauses fall tonight, I hope that no one will take this as a precedent for saying that similar clauses should not be included in any other Bill for any other area. I hope also that my hon. Friends who oppose the powers for London will not automatically oppose similar powers when they are put forward for Merseyside. I hope that if the Government cannot accept such means for Merseyside they will have alternative proposals when the Merseyside County Council Bill comes along.

Mr. Loyden: Is my hon. Friend aware that the main problem in Merseyside is in Liverpool, and that it would not help the inner area programme to transfer any responsibilities overall to the Merseyside County Council? The identifiable problem in Liverpool should be the responsibility of the Liverpool district councils and not the Merseyside County Council.

Mr. Ogden: As I have been here arguing for more help for Liverpool 10 years longer than my hon. Friend, perhaps he will accept that there is no reason why those powers should not be operated by the Liverpool District Council, independently or as agents of the county council. My hon. Friend has often called for more help for Merseyside. This way is one way of getting at least a little more than we have, and of helping Merseyside to help itself.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Beith: I wish to proceed to a Division on this matter because I hope that we can press the case that has been put forward so far. I wish to underline particularly the fact that the question is whether we encourage an unhealthy competition between areas which may have more resources to engage in it and those which have not, and disrupt the whole of regional policy in the process. The House would be unwise to launch upon that course.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 87, Noes 58.

Division No. 226]
AYES
[9.45 p.m.


Armstrong, Ernest
Boardman, H.
Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton &amp; P)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Coleman, Donald


Bates, Alf
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Buchan, Norman
Cowans, Harry


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)




Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Janner, Greville
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dewar, Donald
Lamborn, Harry
Sandelson, Neville


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Sever, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dunnett, Jack
Madden, Max
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Eadie, Alex
Marks, Kenneth
Skinner, Dennis


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Spearing, Nigel


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tinn, James


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Urwin, T. W.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Graham, Ted
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Watkins, David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morgan, Geraint
Whitlock, William


Grocott, Bruce
Newens, Stanley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Harper, Joseph
Noble, Mike
Woodall, Alec


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
O'Halloran, Michael



Hooley, Frank
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hooson, Emlyn
Pardoe, John
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Parker, John
Mr. Eddie Loyden.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pendry, Tom



Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Radice, Giles





NOES


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rifkind, Malcolm


Bendall, Vivian
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Jessel, Toby
Scott, Nicholas


Berry, Hon Anthony
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Shersby, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Lawson, Nigel
Sims, Roger


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Loveridge, John
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Macfarlane, Neil
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Mawby, Ray
Stradling, Thomas, J.


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Fairgrieve, Russell
Neubert, Michael
Wakeham, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Newton, Tony
Weatherill, Bernard


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Ogden, Eric
Whitney, Raymond (Wycombe)


Forman, Nigel
Page, John (Harrow West)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Younger, Hon George


Goodhart, Philip
Raison, Timothy



Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Mr. John Hunt and


Havers, Sir Michael
Rhodes, James R.
Mr. William Shelton.


Hayhoe, Barney
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 11

POWER TO GUARANTEE LOANS

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 10, line 14, leave out Clause 11.—[Mr. Beith.]

Clause 12

POWER TO ASSIST INDUSTRY

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 10, line 39, leave out Clause 12.—[Mr. Beith.]

Clause 13

POWER TO GUARANTEE RENTS, ETC., OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 13, line 33, leave out Clause 13.—[Mr. Beith.]

Mr. Speaker: Third Reading—what day?

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Oscar Murton): To be notified by the Agents.

Mr. Rhodes James: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, but I did not hear the statement by the Chairman of Ways and Means about the next stage of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Agents give notice of the date of Third Reading. I should have known that.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the business relating to liner conferences is not being called.

SPECIAL BRANCH (ACCOUNTABILITY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, it is a year ago this month since I obtained an Adjournment debate on the operations of the Special Branch. That was the first debate that this House had had on that specific matter in 20 years, although in that same period of 20 years the number of men in the Special Branch had increased five-fold from some 200 officers to more than 1,000 officers.
I sought this Adjournment debate because I believed that it would be for the convenience of the House if we had an opportunity to review what had happened in the 12 months since we last discussed this matter.
I take as my point of departure the observation of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in reply to that debate that the place where we should look for information about the Special Branch was in the annual reports of chief constables. With the considerable help of the Library staff, I have been looking for that information in the annual reports of chief constables, and I have looked in vain for the information.
Of the 36 annual reports of provincial forces which we have received, only one contains any statement on the Special Branch unit within the force. That is a particularly significant result, because it shows that the great majority of provincial chief constables are not aware of my hon. Friend's view that the appropriate place for information about the Special Branch was in their annual reports. But it also establishes that at least one, the chief constable of Durham, felt able to give a concise statement about the number of the establishment, the officers in that establishment and the location of that establishment without feeling that it interfered with the effectiveness and efficiency of that unit.
One of more notable examples of those who made no reference to the Special Branch was the Metropolitan Commissioner included no statement on

the Special Branch in his report, although we know that more than half of all the Special Branch officers in Britain are answerable to him. Of course, his report is presented to the Home Secretary and, through the Home Secretary, to Parliament, and one would have assumed that both the Home Secretary and Parliament would have a legitimate interest in knowing something about the Special Branch which operates under the control of the Metropolitan Commissioner.
Just to rub home the point, I might add for good measure that the annual report of the Chief Inspector of Constabulary also contains no reference to the Special Branch.
It would be a matter of only academic concern that there was so little information available on the Special Branch if there were no ground for concern about its activities. It would then be a quite proper matter for Members of Parliament to become exercised about the principles of accountability and the nature of the information which should be available so that we might have a proper open, public, democratic debate on the eperations of the Special Branch. But it would not be a matter of urgent business. However, some of the incidents which have occurred and come to light in the past 12 months are disturbing.
I should like to share with the House four of these incidents. In September of last year, there was the incident at Blackwood in Wales where, at a community college, two Special Branch officers called and requested the register and enrolment cards for a class on Marxist practice.
In November of last year, a Special Branch officer called at Paisley College of Technology, interviewed a student in the college, and offered him what he called "tax-free payments"—I do not know what arrangement the Special Branch might have had with the Treasury—in exchange for information about the political views and activities of the other students at the college.
In December of last year, two Special Branch officers called at Keele University and interviewed two students who were in the officer training corps and also the head porter of the students' union, all three of whom they invited to submit information on "dangerous types". When, subsequently, they were offered a list of 22 students, they turned it down,


apparently in scorn, on the ground that they had a far longer list of their own.
What all these incidents had in common was that they occurred in educational institutions. This is particularly disturbing. Hon. Members are fond of imagining that this type of activity—of collecting information and dossiers on the political activities and views of college students—is more characteristic of Eastern rather than Western European States.
I turn from the interest of Special Branch in educational institutions to its interest in industrial matters. Last summer the work force at Greenwich Reinforcement Steel Services occupied the factory and in the course of that occupation discovered a file containing a memorandum, signed by the works manager and dated September 1975, in which it was made quite plain that he had received information from a Mr. Meynard of Scotland Yard concerning two of the employees at the plant.
In the first of these cases it was noted that the employee had been convicted in 1954—more than 20 years before the information was given and at a time when the man in question had been a youth of only 17. It was precisely to prevent that kind of communication that this House passed the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
The other employee had noted against him three complaints, each of which was no more than a collection of tittle-tattle and gossip, and all of which in different ways were inaccurate. The file included for instance, the observation that the employee had taken part in "illegal demonstrations" although, praise be, there is, as yet, no such thing in Great Britain. It included also the observation that he had disturbed the peace during demonstrations, although the man in question had no conviction and had never been charged. Thirdly it included the information that he had distributed "national Socialist literature" which is thought to be a reference to the International Socialists.
The inaccuracy of these remarks underlines one of the dangers in this practice. It is precisely because of the clandestine nature of this communication that it is impossible for the employee in question who is being slandered—and, make no

mistake, it is slander—to rebut the changes or correct the information.
If we had some form of democratic scrutiny of the operation of Special Branch, and if it was answerable to some form of elected body, it is a matter of speculation whether that elected body, considering the general policy of Special Branch, would or would not agree that it should collect information on college campuses about students on that campus, pass information about past convictions, or participation in demonstrations, to employers. Personally I would be extremely surprised if any elected authority anywhere in Britain agreed to such a proposition.
However, I am certain that whatever speculation there may be about the judgment that they might reach, decisions on such matters are of a political character and as such should not be left to policemen. Here we come to the nub of the matter. Over the last decade, as well as a growth in numbers in the Special Branch there has been a parallel expansion in the scope of its activities. These are neatly illustrated by two definitions of subversion which we have had over that decade.
In 1963, in the course of his report on the Profumo case, Lord Denning offered this definition of subversives—those who
would contemplate the overthrow of the Government by unlawful means.
Between 1963 and 1975 that definition was widened into that which was first offered in the other place, and repeated in this House by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in April this year, in which he defined subversion as:
activities which threaten the safety or well being of the State, and are intended to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means."—[Official Report, 6th April, 1978; Vol. 947, c. 618.]
There is a crucial distinction between the definition of Lord Denning and the one given by my right hon. Friend. In the first place Lord Denning's definition turns on the term "unlawful means". The word "unlawful" is capable of clear, precise and narrow interpretation, based on statute and common law. The second definition of subversion does not turn on any reference to unlawful. It is in no way restricted to unlawful activities. It is, therefore, an invitation to the police forces that police this concept of subversion to stick their nose into any form of political or industrial activity.
I am bound to admit that it may be that times have changed. It may be that there has been an alteration in the circumstances of society that Lord Denning could not reasonably have foreseen in 1963. If that is so, the course for my right hon. Friend is plain: he should bring before the House a measure that creates a new crime of subversion, which that measure would define and interpret. It is doubtful whether the House would accept such a measure in the foreseeable future, but it would be open to my right hon. Friend to present it to us.
What the Government cannot do is by Executive decision create a new class of what we might term quasi-crimes such as subversion, which would not in themselves lead to conviction in any court in the land but render the suspect liable to police surveillance and being placed on police records. That is the road to the Thought Police and the closed society. If any hon. Member thinks that I am going too wide in my observations, I cite in aid information that I have recently obtained from Australia, where there has recently been published a report by a senior judge on the South Australian Special Branch. In the course of the report he mentioned that half of all those held on the records of the Special Branch are there only because they were
suspected by Special Branch of holding or supporting subversive' views by reason only of the fact that such organisations or persons adopted policies or opinions which were 'radical' or 'to the left' of an arbitrary centre fixed by someone in Special Branch.
As a result of that wide definition, members of trade unions, peace movements, the women's liberation movement and the divorce law reform movement in South Australia were placed on the Special Branch files.
Predictably, there were many people in universities placed on the Special Branch files. Judge White found no fewer than two armfuls of files marked "University Matters". In view of what I said earlier about the involvement of the Special Branch in education campuses it may be helpful if I quote Judge White's conclusion. He said:
I gained the impression that nearly all of the material was entirely irrelevant to security issues.
That evidence from South Australia cannot be lightly dismissed. The South

Australian Special Branch was reorganised and re-formed in 1949 with the advice and assistance of Sir Percy Sillitoe, who was then head of MI5 in Britain. Moreover, the Commissioner for Police in South Australia for the past five years was the former Chief Constable of the North and East Ridings of Yorkshre. At both ends—at the creation of the organisation and at its control over the past five years—there is a clear British involvement. It is not unreasonable to take inferences from that report about the practice of the Special Branch in Britain.
I am aware that there is another hon. Member who wishes to intervene and so I move to my close. Before doing so I make two matters plain. It is no criticism of the men who work in the Special Branch to say that the decision on whether someone is subversive is not properly their decision. It is not a matter for which they have had any training and not a matter on which many of them would claim to have expertise.
Nor is it a personal attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I take this opportunity of saying that I much appreciate the fact that he has decided personally to reply to the debate. It is not in any way a personal attack on my right hon. Friend, or on his competence or good faith, to say that it is not adequate to run a system on the basis of the judgment and integrity of the man at the top.
The dilemma was neatly summed up in a reply made by my right hon. Friend in March, in which he said:
The Special Branch collects information on those who I think cause problems for the State."—[Official Report, 2nd March 1978; Vol. 945, c. 650.]
Obviously, any system which operates on the basis of one man at the top keeping control is not a safe or democratic system. Nor is it a practical system given the expansion of the Special Branch and of its range of activities.
How do we know that the incidents at Keele, at Paisley or in Wales are isolated incidents? How do we know that they are not simply the only incidents about which we happen to have heard? How do we know whether the case at Greenwich is the only case in which the Special Branch has given information on employees or the only


case in which the workers happened to obtain the files? We do not know the answers to these questions. We cannot know the answers without some form of independent inquiry such as has been carried out in Australia. I urge the House that the time for that inquiry is now ripe.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Alan Clark: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) has expressed himself with his customary lucidity and persuasion. None the less, my right hon. and hon. Friends retain the view that this area of national security is so sensitive that the extension into it of the concept of democratic accountability, which is the current trendy phrase, would be undesirable. Indeed, the American experience shows that the threat of this and the misinterpretations which may arise out of it have a serious effect on the efficient functioning of the service. We have total confidence that the powers of scrutiny and control which the Home Secretary exercises and the fact that he is answerable to this House are adequate for this purpose.

10.17 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) said that this was not the first time that he had raised matters relating to the activities of police special branches. Indeed, he pointed out that on the Adjournment a year ago he raised the subject of the conduct of inquiries by Special Branch officers.
When talking about accountability, without over-stretching it, it occurs to me that the fact that my hon. Friend has raised the matter in the House, even though at the end of it there may be a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the information that he gets, marks this country as different from many others where I doubt whether in the assembly the matter could be raised at all.
I understand why my hon. Friend raised the matter of South Australia and linked it to people who had served in this country. But the responsibility and accountability for the Special Branch in this country lies with chief constables and police authorities, and I am the police authority for the Metropolitan area.

When I take over a job, such as Home Secretary, and I have to answer for it in the House, I make sure what I am responsible for. It is for that reason that, unusually I suppose for a Cabinet Minister, I am replying to the debate.
I think that it is valuable for the subject to be raised. It allows my hon. Friend to raise matters of concern to him, but it gives me a chance to make one basic comment. I learned this in Northern Ireland as well. I attach the greatest importance to this sphere of police work. I emphasise my confidence in the way that such responsibilities are discharged. I shall also deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark).
I should like to correct various misconceptions which exist. I accept straight away that if little information is given, it is not surprising that misconceptions arise. But the reality is that there is no other way of providing information without ruining the work of the special branch.
I have two direct responsibilities. One concerns interception, about which the House knows. I take that responsibility squarely. The other is responsibility for the prevention of terrorism. A number of cases under this legislation come to me. It is then my responsibility to take a decision. It is a responsibility that no one else can take. Therefore, in a direct fashion I am involved in this work.
With regard to accountability, there is no national Special Branch. Police forces in England and Wales each have their own Special Branches. I am not a Minister of the Interior; I am the Home Secretary. My responsibility, except in the peculiar fashion of the Metropolitan Police, where I accept that the Special Branch is the largest, does not put me on all fours with a Minister of the Interior in other countries. The "Met" Special Branch co-ordinates the collection of intelligence affecting the activities of the IRA, as it has for nearly 100 years. It does not control the special branches of the other forces.
This is a normal part of police duty. Officers employed on those duties are responsible, through their senior officers, to their chief officers of police who are responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the preservation of public


order in their areas. They are not free from control. The opposite is true. Chief officers fully recognise that the duties of Special Branch officers are such as to require the strictest control by senior officers. Special Branch officers are accountable for their actions in the same way as all other police officers. They are not exempt from the provisions of the police discipline code or from the law. The complaints procedure is the same for them as it is for anybody else.
Reports of investigations into complaints are sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions unless, in the same way as with other police officers, the chief officer or his deputy is satisfied that no criminal offence has been committed. The same procedure applies.
Special Branch officers receive detailed instructions about the way in which they should carry out their duties and their responsibilities. I shall return to that. Mistakes are sometimes made. Perhaps that is inevitable in any area of human activity. Enthusiasm sometimes overcomes what should have been better judgment.
Special Branch officers are accountable in the same way as any other police officer. Theirs is not an independent force. The subject matter of their inquiries makes it difficult for their work to be in the open, as is the generality of police work. But structure, training, discipline and organisation are designed to place Special Branch work firmly within the normal police arrangements.
My hon. Friend spoke of the different definitions of subversive organisations. I have looked at this matter carefully. When one talks about different definitions over a period of years, implying that the scope of the Special Branch is different, I say to my hon. Friend that the information collected by the Special Branch relates entirely and solely to the proper purposes of protecting the security of the State and public order. That involves the ability of ordinary citizens to go about their peaceable and ordinary lives. Any idea that inquiries are made about people, or that files are kept on people, for other purposes or because of their political ideas or positions is not true. That is my responsibility overall. I take that responsibility seriously.
I have been in the Labour movement all my life. When I was younger the Labour Party was not as respectable as it now is—and perhaps as unrespectable as some people will try to make it out to be when we have a General Election. I know that there were times when it might have been thought that if one had a book in one's room with "Marx" on it it could have been made out that one was a traitor or in the pay of a foreign Power. If that is the view of the hon. Member for Sutton I hope that he never has anything to do with the Special Branch, because that is the wrong attitude.

Mr. Alan Clark: That is the reverse of my view.

Mr. Rees: But the hon. Member laughed. We should be serious about this matter. In this country names are not put on lists because of political views. Parliament and the police are rightly concerned about those whose intention is to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy. They are not concerned about those who accept democratic institutions and the rule of law and who wish to exercise their right of protest.
I have no objection to giving the numbers in the Special Branch. Perhaps that has not been done before. The Metropolitan Police Special Branch numbers 409. There are about 850 officers in other forces in England and Wales engaged on what might be regarded as Special Branch work. About 300 of them are employed at the ports, though not all are Special Branch officers. That is the great change that has taken place over the years. Twelve million people come in and out of the ports. I am questioned in the House when someone gets out after having killed an Arab Minister who is visiting this country. Checks are made at the ports, and that takes large numbers of men. The checks are carried out to a degree that has never been practised before.
If it were not done properly there would be questions asked of me. Questions were put to me this week about a report that Carlos was seen in Kensington, with all that is implied in that. An answer that I have given to that matter is to appear either tomorrow or today.
I turn now to the Irish question. Anyone who believes that the success rate of the Metropolitan Police, particularly


in the Balcombe Street seige, where 700 police officers turned up in a matter of minutes, is due to the Commissioner suddenly saying "Let us go to that area" knows nothing about policing. It is important that information is obtained.
There is also the question of protecting Ministers. I and my family have had protection over four and a half years. It is provided by a group of armed men who work a watch system. They are Special Branch men. When one considers the number of people who have to be given protection in the course of a day, the numbers of the Special Branch can be seen in context.
I turn now to the question of secrecy and the lack of information. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central referred to the reports of chief officers. He said that there was a difference between Durham and other parts of the country. But it is not possible to give detailed accounts of Special Branch operations.
It is not, however, my intention or that of the police to shroud a perfectly reputable and normal branch of the police organisation in undesirable secrecy. I am always prepared to look at cases. On the case in Gwent, I say only that apologies have been offered. The matters in Paisley, in Scotland, are not my responsibility; they are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. There, I understand that the man was transferred. I have a report about what happened at Greenwich. Unfortunately, time is now running out, but I can say that the Commissioner has assured me that much information in that respect was wrong and that none of it was obtained from a Special Branch officer who was called to the factory to deal with allegations of industrial sabotage.
At Keele no information was sought about the political affiliations or views of anyone. I have looked at a number of these cases very carefully. On one or two of them I say that what happened had better not have been done. But anyone who believes that these are examples of something like the KGB or OGPU—such suggestions may have been made outside,

but they have not been made by my hon. Friend, who has looked carefully into this matter and done a great deal of research—would be wrong.
This is not the tip of the iceberg. I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about some of the cases that he raised, and I have dealt with some of them quickly. I do not believe that he has established any sort of a case for a general inquiry into Special Branch activity. I am not complacent about the role of this Special Branch and that is why this debate and debates of this kind are useful occasions.
Officers in the Special Branch are subject to the ordinary law of the land. The Special Branch is not attacking democracy; it is playing its part in defending it. I know a number of the officers personally and I congratulate them because I know of some of the work they do in the fight against political terrorism.
In view of political terrorism and all the talk that we shall no doubt have in the context of a General Election, it might be a good idea if we praised the way in which we carry out our political activities in all the parties instead of making out that one side or the other is weak, deficient or unpatriotic.
We may have suffered less from terrorist acts than some of our European partners, but we are not immune from that threat, and it would be foolish to pretend that we are. We give a lot of time to considering the possibility that that sort of thing might happen, and we need information from the Special Branch. I am satisfied that the chief officers of police fully understand the proper role of the Special Branch and are aware of their responsibilities—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.